1–8–10 Friday Vol. 75 No. 5 Jan. 8, 2010

Pages 1013–1268

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\08JAWS.LOC 08JAWS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS6 II Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records PUBLIC Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register, www.gpoaccess.gov/ nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via e-mail at [email protected]. The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1- 866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 75 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\08JAWS.LOC 08JAWS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS6 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

Agriculture Department RULES See Food Safety and Inspection Service Energy Conservation Program: See Forest Service Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer NOTICES Products and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Equipment, 1122–1178 Submissions, and Approvals, 1026 NOTICES Public Hearings: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management NOTICES Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Commerce in Explosives: Site, Richland, WA, 1048 List of Explosive Materials (2009R–18T), 1085–1087 Environmental Protection Agency Centers for Disease Control and Prevention RULES Revisions to the Requirements for Transboundary NOTICES Shipments of Hazardous Wastes between OECD Meetings: Member Countries, the Requirements, etc., 1236–1262 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury PROPOSED RULES Prevention and Control, 1062–1063 Proposed Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee Substances; Reopening of Comment Period, 1024 (CLIAC), 1063 NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Industrial Economics, Inc., 1053 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1053–1057 Submissions, and Approvals, 1059–1060 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipt, 1057 Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Executive Office of the President Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 1028– See Presidential Documents 1029 See Trade Representative, Office of United States

Coast Guard Farm Credit Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1057 Submissions, and Approvals, 1068–1069 Cargo Securing Methods for Packages in Transport Vehicles Federal Aviation Administration or Freight Containers, 1070–1071 RULES Airworthiness Directives: Commerce Department General Electric Company (GE) CF34–1A, CF34–3A, and See Industry and Security Bureau CF34–3B Series Turbofan Engines, 1017–1020 See International Trade Administration NOTICES See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meetings: RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Drug Enforcement Administration Advisory Committee, 1116–1117 NOTICES Federal Bureau of Investigation Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 1083–1084 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1084 Education Department NOTICES Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 1036–1037 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1057–1058 Applications for New Awards (Fiscal Year 2010): European Union–United States Atlantis Program, 1044– Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1048 NOTICES Grants for the Integration of Schools and Mental Health Applications: Systems, 1041–1044 Public Utility District No. 1, Snohomish County, Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools, Washington, 1049–1050 1037–1041 Wausau Paper Printing & Writing, LLC, Wausau Paper Mills, LLC, 1049 Energy Department Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Alabama Power Co., 1050

VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:52 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\08JACN.SGM 08JACN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4 IV Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Contents

Filings: Housing and Urban Development Department Christian County Generation LLC, 1051 NOTICES Terra–Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, TGP Dixie Development Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Company, LLC, New York Canyon, LLC, 1052 Homeless, 1071 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC, 1051–1052 Western Area Power Administration, 1050–1051 Industry and Security Bureau Initial Market-Based Rate Filing: RULES Castle Energy Services, LLC, 1052–1053 Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations: Accession of Albania and Croatia to Formal Membership Federal Highway Administration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NOTICES Correction, 1020–1021 Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California, 1114–1115 Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Railroad Administration See Land Management Bureau RULES See Minerals Management Service Passenger Equipment Safety Standards: See National Park Service Front End Strength of Cab Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives, 1180–1233 International Trade Administration NOTICES Federal Reserve System Mission Statement: NOTICES Medical Trade Mission to India, 1029–1031 Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 1058 Review, and Intent to Rescind in Part: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 1031– Holding Companies, 1058 1036

Fish and Wildlife Service International Trade Commission NOTICES NOTICES Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Investigations: Assessment: Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Pope and Yell 1080–1081 Counties, AR, 1073–1075 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1078–1080 Food and Drug Administration RULES Justice Department Certain Other Dosage Form New Animal Drugs: See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau Sevoflurane, 1021 See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES See Federal Bureau of Investigation Draft Guidance for Industry: See Justice Programs Office Planning for the Effects of High Absenteeism to Ensure NOTICES Availability of Medically Necessary Drug Products; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Availability, 1060–1062 Submissions, and Approvals, 1081–1082 Consent Decrees: Food Safety and Inspection Service United States v. Thoro Products Co., 1082–1083 NOTICES Meetings: Justice Programs Office Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products, 1027–1028 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Forest Service Submissions, and Approvals, 1084–1085 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Labor Department Lower Orogrande Project, Clearwater National Forest, NOTICES Clearwater County, ID, 1026–1027 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 1087 Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Land Management Bureau See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES See Food and Drug Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See National Institutes of Health Submissions, and Approvals, 1071–1073 NOTICES Proposed Withdrawal Extension and Opportunity for Public Meetings: Meeting: President’s Advisory Council for Faith-based and Alaska, 1077–1078 Neighborhood Partnerships, 1058 Wyoming, 1076–1077

Homeland Security Department Minerals Management Service See Coast Guard NOTICES See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Outer Continental Shelf Civil Penalties, 1076

VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:52 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\08JACN.SGM 08JACN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Contents V

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOTICES Defense and National Security: Receipt of Petitions for Decisions: Classified National Security Information; Uniform System Nonconforming 2005 and 2006 Mercedes Benz S-Class and Processes (EO 13526) Passenger Cars, etc., 1117–1118 Correction, 1013 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: National Institutes of Health Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Detention Facilities; NOTICES Acquisition of Thomson Correctional Center To Meetings: Facilitate Closure (Memorandum of December 15, Center for Scientific Review, 1064–1067 2009), 1015–1016 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 1067–1068 Railroad Retirement Board National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NOTICES 1068 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1088–1089 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 1063–1064 Research and Innovative Technology Administration NOTICES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Invitation for Public Comment on Strategic Research RULES Direction, Research Priority Areas and Performance International Fisheries Regulations; Fisheries in the Metrics, etc., 1115–1116 Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries: Securities and Exchange Commission Hawaii-based Shallow-set Longline Fishery; Correction, NOTICES 1023 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Submissions, and Approvals, 1089–1090 Act Provisions: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1090–1091 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States, 1021–1023 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: PROPOSED RULES BATS Exchange, Inc., 1109–1110 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 1101–1104 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; New York Stock Exchange LLC, 1091–1093, 1104–1108 Control Date for Loligo and Illex Squid, 1024–1025 NOTICES NYSE Amex LLC, 1094–1101 Marine Mammals; File No. 14486: NYSE Arca, Inc., 1096–1097 Receipt of Application, 1029 Options Clearing Corp., 1093–1094 State Department National Park Service NOTICES NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition National Register of Historic Places: Determinations: Weekly Listing of Historic Properties, 1075–1076 Marina Abramovic; The Artist Is Present, 1110

National Science Foundation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Release of Waybill Data, 1118 Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 1087– Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption: 1088 BNSF Railway Co.; Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1118– 1119 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES NOTICES Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Land States: Management, 1088 Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China, 1110– Office of United States Trade Representative 1112 See Trade Representative, Office of United States Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration Postal Service See Federal Highway Administration NOTICES See Federal Railroad Administration Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1088 See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Research and Innovative Technology Administration Presidential Documents See Surface Transportation Board PROCLAMATIONS NOTICES Special observances: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, National Mentoring Month (Proc. 8470), 1265–1266 Submissions, and Approvals, 1112–1113 Special Observances: Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Month (Proc. 8471), 1267–1268 Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q), 1113

VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:52 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\08JACN.SGM 08JACN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4 VI Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Contents

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed, 1114 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 1236–1262 U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Part V Submissions, and Approvals, 1069 Presidential Documents, 1265–1266, 1267–1268 Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Reader Aids Submissions, and Approvals, 1119–1120 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Separate Parts In This Issue To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Part II LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// Energy Department, 1122–1178 listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Part III settings); then follow the instructions. Transportation Department, Federal Railroad Administration, 1180–1233

VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:52 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\08JACN.SGM 08JACN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Proclamations: 8470...... 1265 8471...... 1267 Executive Orders: 13526...... 1013 Administrative Orders: Memorandums: Memo. of December 15, 2009 ...... 1015 10 CFR 431...... 1122 14 CFR 39...... 1017 15 CFR 738...... 1020 21 CFR 529...... 1021 40 CFR 262...... 1236 263...... 1236 264...... 1236 265...... 1236 266...... 1236 271...... 1236 Proposed Rules: 721...... 1024 49 CFR 238...... 1180 50 CFR 648...... 1021 665...... 1023 Proposed Rules: 648...... 1024

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:05 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\08JALS.LOC 08JALS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS5 1013

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

Title 3— Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009—Classified National Secu- rity Information The President Correction

In Presidential document E9–31418 beginning on page 707 in the issue of Tuesday, January 5, 2010, make the following correction: On page 731, the date line below the President’s signature should read ‘‘December 29, 2009.’’

[FR Doc. C1–2009–31418 Filed 1–6–10; 2:00 pm] Billing Code 1505–01–D

VerDate Nov<24>2008 07:50 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAE0.SGM 08JAE0 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PRESDOCS 1015

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

Title 3— Memorandum of December 15, 2009

The President Directing Certain Actions with Respect to Acquisition and Use of Thomson Correctional Center to Facilitate Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense [and] the Attorney General

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40, 115 Stat. 224), and in order to facilitate the closure of detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, I hereby direct that the following actions be taken as expeditiously as possible with respect to the facility known as the Thomson Correctional Center (TCC) in Thomson, Illinois: 1. The Attorney General shall acquire and activate the TCC as a United States Penitentiary, which the Attorney General has determined would reduce the Bureau of Prisons’ shortage of high security, maximum custody cell space and could be used for other appropriate inmate or detainee management purposes. The Attorney General shall also provide to the Department of Defense a sufficient portion of the TCC to serve as a detention facility to be operated by the Department of Defense in order to accommodate the relocation of detainees by the Secretary of Defense in accordance with paragraph 2 of this memorandum. 2. The Secretary of Defense, working in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prepare the TCC for secure housing of detainees currently held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base who have been or will be designated for relocation, and shall relocate such detainees to the TCC, consistent with laws related to Guantanamo detainees and the findings in, and inter- agency Review established by, Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:06 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAO0.SGM 08JAO0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES2 1016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Presidential Documents

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memo- randum in the Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, December 15, 2009

[FR Doc. 2010–227 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 5001–06–M

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:06 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAO0.SGM 08JAO0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES2 OB#1.EPS 1017

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DATES: This AD becomes effective response to a comment received on the contains regulatory documents having general January 25, 2010. The Director of the proposed AD, we inadvertently left out applicability and legal effect, most of which Federal Register previously approved of the AD certain fan blade effectivity are keyed to and codified in the Code of the incorporation by reference of certain information from paragraphs (f) and (g) Federal Regulations, which is published under publications listed in the regulations as and (j). Paragraphs (f) and (g) are 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. of January 4, 2010. missing information on fan blades, P/Ns The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by We must receive any comments on 6018T30P14 or 4923T56G08, that have the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of this AD by March 9, 2010. any fan blade S/Ns listed in Appendix new books are listed in the first FEDERAL ADDRESSES: Use one of the following A of General Electric Aircraft Engines REGISTER issue of each week. addresses to comment on this AD. (GEAE) Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF34– • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to AL S/B 72–0245, Revision 01, dated July http://www.regulations.gov and follow 30, 2008. Also, paragraph (j) is missing DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the instructions for sending your information on fan blades, P/N comments electronically. 6018T30P14 or P/N 4923T56G08, that Federal Aviation Administration • Mail: Docket Management Facility, have any fan blade S/Ns listed in U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 Appendix A of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ 14 CFR Part 39 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, [Docket No. FAA–2008–0328; Directorate Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 2008. This AD supersedure adds the Identifier 2008–NE–44–AD; Amendment 39– Washington, DC 20590–0001. missing information to the compliance 16161; AD 2010–01–04] • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail section and changes the effective date of address above between 9 a.m. and 5 the original AD to the same effective RIN 2120–AA64 p.m., Monday through Friday, except date as this AD, to prevent possible Federal holidays. grounding of airplanes. Airworthiness Directives; General • Fax: (202) 493–2251. Relevant Service Information Electric Company (GE) CF34–1A, Contact General Electric Company, CF34–3A, and CF34–3B Series GE–Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann We have reviewed and approved the Turbofan Engines Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, telephone technical contents of the following GE Aircraft Engines SBs: AGENCY: (513) 552–3272; fax (513) 552–3329; Federal Aviation • CF34–AL S/B 73–0046, Revision 02, Administration (FAA), DOT. e-mail: [email protected] for the service information identified in this AD. dated August 27, 2008, and CF34–BJ ACTION: Final rule; request for S/B 73–0062, Revision 02, dated August FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments. John 27, 2008, that provide instructions for Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine inspecting the orientation of the aft SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an Certification Office, FAA, Engine & actuator hose assembly and the main existing airworthiness directive (AD) for Propeller Directorate, 12 New England fuel control. GE CF34–1A, CF34–3A, and CF34–3B Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; • CF34–AL S/B 72–0245, Revision 01, series turbofan engines. That AD e-mail: [email protected]; telephone dated July 3, 2008, CF34–BJ S/B 72– currently requires removing from (781) 238–7756; fax (781) 238–7199. 0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, service certain part number (P/N) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA and CF34–BJ S/B 72–0230, Revision 01, serial number (S/N) fan blades within amends 14 CFR part 39 by superseding dated July 30, 2008, that provide compliance times specified in the AD, AD 2009–24–11, Amendment 39–16103 instructions for replacing certain inspecting the fan blade abradable rub (74 FR 62481, November 30, 2009). That existing blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 and strip on certain engines for wear, AD requires removing from service 4923T56G08, that have a S/N listed in inspecting the fan blades on certain certain P/N and S/N fan blades within Appendix A of those SBs. engines for cracks, inspecting the aft compliance times specified in the AD, • CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, Revision 01, actuator head hose fitting for correct inspecting the fan blade abradable rub dated November 26, 2008, and CF34–BJ position, and, if necessary, repositioning strip on certain engines for wear, S/B 72–0231, Revision 02, dated the hose fitting. This ad supersedure inspecting the fan blades on certain November 26, 2008, that provide requires the same actions but corrects engines for cracks, inspecting the aft instructions for inspecting the fan case the effectivity for certain fan blades actuator head hose fitting for correct abradable rub strip and fan blade tangs. requiring corrective actions and changes position, and, if necessary, repositioning FAA’s Determination and Requirements the effective date of the current AD. the hose fitting. That AD was the result of This AD This AD supersedure results from the of a report of an under-cowl fire and a FAA discovering that the existing AD failed fan blade. That condition, if not The unsafe condition described has an incorrect effectivity for certain corrected, could result in an under-cowl previously is likely to exist or develop fan blades requiring corrective actions, fire and subsequent damage to the on other GE CF34–1A, CF34–3A, and and from a report of an under-cowl fire airplane. CF34–3B series turbofan engines of the and a failed fan blade. We are issuing same type design. We are issuing this this AD to prevent failure of certain Actions Since AD 2009–24–11 Was AD supersedure to prevent failure of P/N and S/N fan blades and aft actuator Issued certain P/N and S/N fan blades and aft head hoses, which could result in an Since AD 2009–24–11 was issued, we actuator head hoses, which could result under-cowl fire and subsequent damage discovered that when we recodified the in an under-cowl fire and subsequent to the airplane. compliance section as part of our damage to the airplane. This AD

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:10 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 1018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

requires removing from service certain other information. The street address for of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 P/N and S/N fan blades within the Docket Operations office (telephone CFR part 39) as follows: compliance times specified in the AD, (800) 647–5527) is the same as the Mail inspecting the fan blade abradable rub address provided in the ADDRESSES PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS strip on certain engines for wear, section. Comments will be available in DIRECTIVES inspecting the fan blades on certain the AD docket shortly after receipt. 1. The authority citation for part 39 engines for cracks, inspecting the aft continues to read as follows: actuator head hose fitting for correct Authority for This Rulemaking position, and, if necessary, repositioning Title 49 of the United States Code Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. the hose fitting. You must use the specifies the FAA’s authority to issue § 39.13 [Amended] rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, service information described 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by section 106, describes the authority of previously to perform the actions removing Amendment 39–16103 (74 FR the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, required by this AD. 62481, November 30, 2009), and by Aviation Programs, describes in more FAA’s Determination of the Effective adding a new airworthiness directive, detail the scope of the Agency’s Date Amendment 39–16161, to read as authority. follows: Since an unsafe condition exists that We are issuing this rulemaking under requires the immediate adoption of this the authority described in subtitle VII, 2010–01–04 General Electric Company: AD, we have found that notice and part A, subpart III, section 44701, Amendment 39–16161. Docket No. opportunity for public comment before ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that FAA–2008–0328; Directorate Identifier 2008–NE–44–AD. issuing this AD are impracticable, and section, Congress charges the FAA with that good cause exists for making this promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Effective Date amendment effective in less than 30 air commerce by prescribing regulations (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) days. for practices, methods, and procedures becomes effective January 25, 2010. Comments Invited the Administrator finds necessary for Affected ADs safety in air commerce. This regulation This AD is a final rule that involves is within the scope of that authority (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009–24–11, Amendment 39–16103. requirements affecting flight safety and because it addresses an unsafe condition was not preceded by notice and an that is likely to exist or develop on Applicability opportunity for public comment. products identified in this rulemaking (c) This AD applies to General Electric However, we invite you to send us any action. Company (GE) CF34–1A, CF34–3A, CF34– written relevant data, views, or 3A1, CF34–3A2, CF34–3B, and CF34–3B1 arguments regarding this AD. Send your Regulatory Findings turbofan engines. These engines are installed comments to an address listed under We have determined that this AD will on, but not limited to, Bombardier Canadair ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– not have federalism implications under Models CL–600–2A12, CL–600–2B16, and 2008–0328; Directorate Identifier 2008– Executive Order 13132. This AD will CL–600–2B19 airplanes. NE–44–AD’’ in the subject line of your not have a substantial direct effect on Unsafe Condition comments. We specifically invite the States, on the relationship between (d) This AD results from the FAA comments on the overall regulatory, the national Government and the States, discovering that the existing AD has an economic, environmental, and energy or on the distribution of power and incorrect effectivity for certain fan blades aspects of the rule that might suggest a responsibilities among the various requiring corrective actions, and from a need to modify it. levels of government. report of an under-cowl fire and a failed fan We will post all comments we For the reasons discussed above, I blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent receive, without change, to http:// certify that this AD: failure of certain part number (P/N) and www.regulations.gov, including any 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory serial number (S/N) fan blades and aft personal information you provide. We ’’ actuator head hoses, which could result in an action under Executive Order 12866; under-cowl fire and subsequent damage to will also post a report summarizing each 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the the airplane. substantive verbal contact with FAA DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures personnel concerning this AD. Using the (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and Compliance search function of the Web site, anyone 3. Will not have a significant (e) You are responsible for having the can find and read the comments in any economic impact, positive or negative, actions required by this AD performed within of our dockets, including, if provided, on a substantial number of small entities the compliance times specified, unless the the name of the individual who sent the under the criteria of the Regulatory actions have already been done. comment (or signed the comment on Flexibility Act. CF34–3A1 and CF34–3B1 Engines behalf of an association, business, labor We prepared a summary of the costs (f) For CF34–3A1 engines that meet all of union, etc.). You may review the DOT’s to comply with this AD and placed it in the following criteria, perform the actions complete Privacy Act Statement in the the AD Docket. You may get a copy of specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Federal Register published on April 11, this summary at the address listed (1) Fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). under ADDRESSES. installed; and (2) Airworthiness limitation section fan Examining the AD Docket List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 drive shaft life limit of 22,000 cycles-since- You may examine the AD docket on Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation new (CSN); and the Internet at http:// safety, Incorporation by reference, (3) Installed fan blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Safety. or 4923T56G08, that have any fan blade S/Ns listed in Appendix A of General Electric Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. Adoption of the Amendment Aircraft Engines (GEAE) SB No. CF34–AL S/ and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, B 72–0245, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008. except Federal holidays. The AD docket Under the authority delegated to me (g) For CF34–3A1 engines that meet all of contains this AD, the regulatory by the Administrator, the Federal the following criteria, perform the actions evaluation, any comments received, and Aviation Administration amends part 39 specified in paragraph (i) of this AD:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:37 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1019

(1) Fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the Repetitive ECI of the Fan Blades installed; and Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB (6) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, within (2) Airworthiness limitation section fan No. CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, Revision 01, 600 CSLI, perform an ECI of the fan blades drive shaft life limit of 15,000 CSN; and dated November 26, 2008. for cracks. Use paragraphs 3.A. or 3.B. of the (3) In compliance with GEAE SB No. (ii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34–AL S/B 72–0147, dated May 21, 2003, holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated Revision 01, dated October 17, 2003, service. July 30, 2008, to perform the inspection. Revision 02, dated August 5, 2004, or Inspection of the Aft Actuator Head Hose (7) If you find a crack in the retaining pin Revision 3, dated August 28, 2003; and Fitting on CF34–3A1 and CF34–3B1 Engines holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from (4) Installed fan blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 service. or 4923T56G08, that have any fan blade (7) Within 750 hours time-in-service (TIS) S/Ns listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB No. after the effective date of this AD, visually Initial Visual Inspection of the Fan Blade CF34–AL S/B 72–0245, Revision 01, dated inspect and, if necessary, reposition the aft Abradable Rub Strip for Wear actuator head hose fitting. Use paragraph 3.A July 30, 2008. (8) For engines with fan blades, P/N of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE (h) For CF34–3B1 engines that meet all of 6018T30P14, installed that have any fan SB No. CF34–AL S/B 73–0046, Revision 02, the following criteria, perform the actions blade S/Ns listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB dated August 27, 2008, to perform the specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated inspection. (1) Installed fan blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 July 30, 2008, with 1,200 or more CSN on the or 4923T56G08; and CF34–1A, CF34–3A, CF34–3A2, CF34–3B, effective date of this AD, and that haven’t (2) With any fan blade S/Ns listed in and CF34–3A1 Engines had an ECI of the fan blades for cracks, do Appendix A of GEAE SB No. CF34–AL S/B (j) For CF34–3A1 engines that meet all of the following: 72–0245, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008. the following criteria, perform the actions (i) Perform an initial inspection of the fan (i) Do the following for the engines meeting specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: blade abradable rub strip for wear within 20 the criteria in paragraph (f), (g), or (h) of this (1) Fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, CIS after the effective date of this AD. Use AD, as applicable: installed; and paragraph 3.A.(1) of the Accomplishment (1) Remove listed fan blades from service (2) Airworthiness limitation section fan Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B within 4,000 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the drive shaft life limit of 15,000 CSN that are 72–0231, Revision 02, dated November 26, effective date of this AD or by December 31, not in compliance with GEAE SB No. CF34– 2008, to perform the inspection. 2010, whichever occurs first. AL S/B 72–0147, dated May 21, 2003, (ii) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub Revision 01, dated October 17, 2003, indication, before further flight, perform a Initial Visual Inspection of the Fan Blade visual inspection of the fan blades for cracks. Abradable Rub Strip for Wear Revision 02, dated August 5, 2004, or Revision 03, dated August 28, 2003; and Use paragraphs 3.A(2)(a) or 3.A(2)(b) of the (2) For fan blades with 1,200 or more CSN (3) With fan blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 or Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB on the effective date of this AD, perform an 4923T56G08, that have any fan blade S/Ns No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0231, Revision 02, dated initial visual inspection of the fan blade listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB No. CF34– November 26, 2008, to perform the abradable rub strip for wear within 20 CIS BJ S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, inspection. after the effective date of this AD. Use 2008. (iii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(2) of the (k) For CF34–1A, CF34–3A, CF34–3A2, holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB and CF34–3B engines that meet all of the service. No. CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, Revision 01, following criteria, perform the actions Repetitive Inspection of the Fan Blade dated November 26, 2008, to perform the specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: Abradable Rub Strip for Wear inspection. (1) Installed fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14 or (9) For engines with fan blades, P/N (3) For fan blades with fewer than 1,200 P/N 4923T56G08; and CSN on the effective date of this AD, perform (2) Installed fan blade S/Ns listed in 6018T30P14, installed, if you have performed an initial visual inspection of the fan blade Appendix A of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B an ECI of the fan blade, you don’t need to abradable rub strip for wear within 1,220 72–0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008: inspect the fan blade abradable rub strip for wear. CSN. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(2) (l) Do the following for the engines meeting of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE (10) For engines with fan blades, P/N the criteria in paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD 6018T30P14, installed, within 75 CSLI or 100 SB No. CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, Revision 01, as applicable: dated November 26, 2008, to perform the HSLI, whichever occurs later, do the (1) Remove listed fan blades, P/N inspection. following: 6018T30P14, from service within 2,400 CSN. (4) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub (i) Perform a visual inspection of the fan (2) Remove listed fan blades, P/N indication, before further flight, visually blade abradable rub strip for wear. Use 4923T56G08, from service within 1,200 CIS inspect the fan blades using paragraphs paragraph 3.A.(1) of the Accomplishment since the bushing repair of the fan blade hole. 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB Initial Eddy Current Inspection of the Fan 72–0231, Revision 02, dated November 26, No. CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, Revision 01, Blades 2008, to perform the inspection. dated November 26, 2008. (3) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, with (ii) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub (5) If you find a crack in the retaining pin more than 850 CSN, perform an initial eddy indication, before further flight, visually holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from current inspection (ECI) of the fan blades for inspect the fan blades using paragraphs service. cracks within 350 CIS after the effective date 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the of this AD. Use paragraphs 3.A. or 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB Repetitive Visual Inspection of the Fan No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0231, Revision 02, dated Blade Abradable Rub Strip for Wear Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2008. (6) Within 75 cycles-since-last inspection July 30, 2008, to perform the inspection. (iii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin (CSLI) or 100 hours-since-last-inspection (4) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, with holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from (HSLI), whichever occurs later, perform a 850 or fewer CSN on the effective date of this service. visual inspection of the fan blade abradable AD, perform an initial ECI of the fan blades Inspection of the Aft Actuator Head Hose rub strip for wear. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) for cracks within 1,200 CSN. Use paragraphs Fitting on CF34–3A1 and CF34–3B Engines through 3.A.(2) of the Accomplishment 3.A. or 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–AL S/B Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B (11) For CF34–3A1 engines, within 300 72–0250, Revision 01, dated November 26, 72–0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, to hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, 2008, to perform the inspection. perform the inspection. visually inspect and, if necessary, reposition (i) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub (5) If you find a crack in the retaining pin the aft actuator head hose fitting. Use indication, before further flight, visually holes of the fan blade, remove the blade from paragraph 3.A of the Accomplishment inspect the fan blades using paragraphs service. Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:10 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 1020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

73–0062, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008, the requirements specified in paragraphs (i) Was installed in any CF34–3A1 engine to perform the inspection. (l)(10)(i) and (l)(10)(ii) of this AD. with fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, with (12) For CF34–3B engines, within 400 (5) CF34–BJ S/B 73–0062, Revision 01, an airworthiness limitation section fan drive hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, dated July 1, 2008, or earlier issue, meet the shaft life limit of 22,000 CSN; and visually inspect and, if necessary, reposition requirements specified in paragraphs (l)(11) (ii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB No. the aft actuator head hose fitting. Use and (l)(12) of this AD. CF34–AL S/B 72–0245, Revision 01, dated paragraph 3.A of the Accomplishment Installation Prohibitions July 3, 2008. Instructions of GEAE SB No. CF34–BJ S/B (n) After the effective date of this AD: 73–0062, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008, Alternative Methods of Compliance to perform the inspection. (1) Do not install any fan blade into any (o) The Manager, Engine Certification CF34–3A1 engine with fan drive shaft, P/N Office, has the authority to approve Credit for Previous Actions 6036T78P02, with an airworthiness alternative methods of compliance for this (m) Inspections previously performed limitation section fan drive shaft life limit of 22,000 CSN if that fan blade: AD if requested using the procedures found using the following GEAE SBs meet the in 14 CFR 39.19. requirements specified in the indicated (i) Was installed in a CF34–3A1 engine paragraphs: with fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, with Related Information an airworthiness limitation section fan drive (p) Contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, (1) CF34–AL S/B 72–0250, dated August shaft life limit of 15,000 CSN; and 15, 2008, meet the requirements specified in (ii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB No. Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(4) of this AD. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229, Revision 01, dated Propeller Directorate, 12 New England (2) CF34–AL S/B 73–0046, Revision 01, July 30, 2008; or Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; dated July 1, 2008, or earlier issue, meet the (iii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB e-mail: [email protected]; telephone (781) requirements specified in paragraph (i)(7) of No. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0230, Revision 01, dated 238–7756; fax (781) 238–7199, for more this AD. July 30, 2008. information about this AD. (3) CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229, dated April 10, (2) Do not install any fan blade into any Material Incorporated by Reference 2008, meet the requirements specified in CF34–3A1 engine with fan drive shaft, P/N paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD. 6036T78P02, with an airworthiness (q) You must use the GE Aircraft Engines (4) CF34–BJ S/B 72–0231, Revision 01, limitation section fan drive shaft life limit of service information specified in the following dated October 1, 2008, or earlier issue, meet 15,000 CSN if that fan blade: Table 1 to do the actions required by this AD.

TABLE 1—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Service Bulletin No. Page Revision Date

CF34–AL S/B 73–0046. Total Pages: 8 All ...... 02 August 27, 2008. CF34–BJ S/B 73–0062. Total Pages: 8 All ...... 02 August 27, 2008. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0229. Total Pages: 158 All ...... 01 July 30, 2008. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0230. Total Pages: 153 All ...... 01 July 30, 2008. CF34–BJ S/B 72–0231. Total Pages: 8 All ...... 02 November 26, 2008. CF34–AL S/B 72–0245. Total Pages: 153 All ...... 01 July 3, 2008. CF34–AL S/B 72–0250. Total Pages: 9 All ...... 01 November 26, 2008.

(1) The Director of the Federal Register Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE previously approved the incorporation by December 29, 2009. reference of this service information under 5 Francis A. Favara, Bureau of Industry and Security U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, as of January Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 4, 2010. Aircraft Certification Service. 15 CFR Part 738 (2) For service information identified in [FR Doc. E9–31274 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] this AD, contact General Electric Company, [Docket No. 0907241162–91276–01] GE–Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Cincinnati, OH 45215, telephone (513) 552– 3272; fax (513) 552–3329; e-mail: RIN 0694–AE62 [email protected]. (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Amendments to the Export New England Region, 12 New England Administration Regulations (EAR) Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Based Upon the Accession of Albania National Archives and Records and Croatia to Formal Membership in Administration (NARA). For information on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the availability of this material at NARA, call (NATO) (202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- Correction locations.html. In rule document E9–30484 beginning on page 68142 in the issue of Wednesday, December 23, 2009, make the following correction:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:10 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1021

Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 [Corrected] On page 68145, in Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, the table is reprinted to read as set forth below:

SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 738—COMMERCE COUNTRY CHART [Reason for control]

Chemical & Fire- biological Nuclear Mis- arms Countries weapons non- National sile Regional con- Crime control Anti-ter- proliferation Security Tech Stability ven- rorism tion CB CB CB NP NP NS NS MT RS RS FC CC CC CC AT AT

1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2

******* Albania 23 ... X X X X X X X

******* Croatia 3 ...... X X ...... X X X

******* 2See §742.4(a) for special provisions that apply to exports and reexports to these countries of certain thermal imaging cameras. 3See §742.6(a)(3) for special provisions that apply to military commodities that are subject to ECCN OA919.

[FR Doc. C1–2009–30484 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Products Corp.’s Sevoflurane is the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 BILLING CODE 1505–01–D approved as a generic copy of SEVOFLO CFR part 529 is amended as follows: (sevoflurane), sponsored by Abbott Laboratories, under NADA 141–103. PART 529—CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND The ANADA is approved as of FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS HUMAN SERVICES November 27, 2009, and the regulations are amended in § 529.2150 to reflect the 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR Food and Drug Administration approval. part 529 continues to read as follows: In accordance with the freedom of Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 21 CFR Part 529 information provisions of 21 CFR part § 529.2150 [Amended] [Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0665] 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness 2. In paragraph (b) of § 529.2150, Certain Other Dosage Form New data and information submitted to remove ‘‘Nos. 000074 and 060307’’ and Animal Drugs; Sevoflurane support approval of this application in its place add ‘‘Nos. 000074, 012164, may be seen in the Division of Dockets and 060307’’. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Dated: January 4, 2010. HHS. Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. Bernadette Dunham, ACTION: Final rule. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through SUMMARY: The Food and Drug [FR Doc. 2010–47 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Administration (FDA) is amending the Friday. The agency has determined under 21 BILLING CODE 4160–01–S animal drug regulations to reflect CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type approval of an abbreviated new animal that does not individually or drug application (ANADA) filed by cumulatively have a significant effect on DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Halocarbon Products Corp. The ANADA the human environment. Therefore, provides for the use of sevoflurane National Oceanic and Atmospheric neither an environmental assessment inhalant anesthetic in dogs. Administration nor an environmental impact statement DATES: This rule is effective January 8, is required. 2010. This rule does not meet the definition 50 CFR Part 648 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because [Docket No. 0907241164–91415–02] K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ RIN 0648–AY09 Medicine (HFV–170), Food and Drug Therefore, it is not subject to the Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., congressional review requirements in 5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8197, e- U.S.C. 801–808. Conservation and Management Act mail: [email protected]. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 529 Provisions; Fisheries of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Northeastern United States Halocarbon Products Corp., 887 Animal drugs. Kinderkamack Rd., River Edge, NJ Therefore, under the Federal Food, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 07661, filed ANADA 200–467 that Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and provides for use of Sevoflurane, an authority delegated to the Commissioner Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), inhalant anesthetic, in dogs. Halocarbon of Food and Drugs and redelegated to Commerce.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:10 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 1022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Final rule. resulted in the delay and lost the applicant will be required to supply opportunity to conduct important the vessel operator name, the vessel’s SUMMARY: NMFS is modifying the fishery research, which negatively Federal fishing permit number, and the Northeast (NE) Region experimental affects cooperative research efforts and vessel registration or documentation fishing regulations to authorize the increases the cost of data collection. In number. NMFS NE Regional Administrator (RA), addition, the administrative burden on or the RA’s designee, to issue a Letter NMFS from processing and overseeing Comments and Responses of Authorization (LOA) to eligible these routine EFPs is substantial. Comment 1: There was one comment researchers on board federally permitted To mitigate these concerns, this final submitted in response to this proposed fishing vessels that plan to temporarily rule authorizes the RA, or the RA’s rulemaking that expressed support for possess fish in a manner not compliant designee, to issue an LOA to eligible reducing the administrative burden of with applicable fishing regulations for researchers on board federally permitted EFPs on cooperative research projects in the purpose of collecting scientific data fishing vessels that plan to temporarily general. on catch. possess for the purpose of collecting Response: NMFS concurs that this DATES: This final rule is effective on scientific data on fish that could rule will reduce the administrative February 8, 2010. otherwise not be retained under burden of EFPs on cooperative research ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory applicable fishing regulations. The RA program. Impact Review (RIR) are available upon will determine whether the applicant Classification request from Patricia A. Kurkul, and participating vessels meet the Regional Administrator, NMFS, NE eligibility criteria prior to issuing or Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Regional Office, 55 Great Republic denying a temporary possession LOA Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. application. Assistant Administrator determined that NMFS will maintain discretion over FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this rule is consistent with the Fishery the vessels and researchers that are Ryan Silva, Cooperative Research Management Plans (FMPs) of the NE issued temporary exemption LOAs. To Liaison, phone (978) 281–9326, fax Region, other provisions of the ensure effective oversight, eligible (978) 281–9135. Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other vessels will need to meet the applicable law, and is necessary to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final requirements described below, and EFP rule revises portions of the NE Region discharge the general responsibility to oversight policies will apply to all carry out said FMPs. experimental fishing regulations to vessels issued a temporary possession authorize the NMFS NE Regional This final rule has been determined to LOA. Any additional exemptions be not significant for purposes of Administrator (RA), or the RA’s beyond temporary possession would designee, to issue a Letter of Executive Order 12866. need to be obtained through the The Chief Counsel for Regulation of Authorization (LOA) to eligible standard EFP process. researchers on board federally permitted the Department of Commerce certified Only personnel from the following to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the fishing vessels that plan to temporarily bodies will be eligible for a temporary Small Business Administration during possess fish in a manner not compliant possession LOA: Foreign government the proposed rule stage that this action with applicable fishing regulations for agency; U.S. Government agency; U.S. would not have a significant economic the purpose of collecting scientific data state or territorial agency; university (or impact on a substantial number of small on catch (temporary possession LOA). other educational institution accredited entities. The factual basis for the NE Region fishing regulations at 50 by a recognized national or international certification was published in the CFR part 648 implement management accreditation body); international treaty proposed rule and is not repeated here. measures for fisheries operating under organization; or scientific institution. 15 fishery management plans (FMPs). To obtain a temporary possession No comments were received regarding These regulations include minimum LOA, an eligible applicant will be this certification. As a result, a fish sizes, fish possession limits, and required to submit a complete regulatory flexibility analysis was not various spatial and temporal fish application, similar to an EFP required and none was prepared. possession restrictions such as quota application, which contains the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 and area closures. Federally permitted following information: The date of the fishing vessels that carry research application; the applicant’s name, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and personnel during commercial fishing mailing address, and telephone number; recordkeeping requirements. trips for the purpose of collecting catch a statement of the purposes and goals Dated: January 4, 2010 data before discarding restricted fish are for which the LOA is needed; the Samuel D. Rauch III, currently required to obtain an EFP in name(s) and affiliation of the fishery Deputy Assistant Administrator For order to conduct their sampling work. research technicians that will be Regulatory Programs, National Marine The requirement to obtain an EFP prior collecting the data; a statement Fisheries Service. to conducting these types of sampling demonstrating the qualifications of the ■ For the reasons set out in the activities on commercial fishing vessels research technician that will be preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended has raised several issues and concerns collecting the data; the species (target as follows: within the scientific community, the and incidental) expected to be harvested Regional Fishery Management Councils, under the LOA; the disposition of all PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE and among NMFS Regional Office and regulated species harvested under the NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Science Center staff. Due to the time LOA; the approximate time(s) and ■ necessary to request and obtain an EFP, place(s) fishing will take place; the type, 1. The authority citation for part 648 these temporary possession EFPs can size, and amount of gear to be used; and continues to read as follows: inhibit the ability of fishery researchers the signature of the applicant. In Authority: to opportunistically accompany addition, for each vessel to be covered ■ 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. commercial fishing vessels for the by the LOA, as soon as the information ■ 2. In § 648.12, paragraph (d) is added purpose of data collection. This has is available and before operations begin, to read as follows:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:43 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1023

§ 648.12 Experimental fishing. that will collect the data; the species FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: * * * * * (target and incidental) expected to be Adam Bailey, NMFS Pacific Islands (d) Temporary possession letter of harvested under the LOA; the proposed Region, 808–944–2248. authorization (LOA): The Regional disposition of all regulated species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final Administrator (RA), or the RA’s harvested under the LOA; the rule published on December 10, 2009, designee, may issue an LOA to eligible approximate time(s) and place(s) fishing and effective January 11, 2010 (74 FR researchers on board federally permitted will take place; the type, size, and 65480), revised annual interaction limits fishing vessels on which species of fish amount of gear to be used; and the for sea turtles, among other actions. that otherwise could not be legally signature of the applicant. In addition, The amendatory instructions that are retained would be possessed for each vessel to be covered by the the subject of this correction refer to temporarily for the purpose of collecting LOA, as soon as the information is § 665.33 in Title 50 of the CFR. In the catch data. Under this authorization, available and before operations begin, amendatory instructions in the such species of fish could be retained the applicant is required to supply to published final rule (74 FR 65480), temporarily for data collection NMFS the vessel operator name, the instruction 7 revised 50 CFR 665.33(b), purposes, but shall be discarded as soon vessel’s Federal fishing permit number, relating to the annual limits on sea as practicable following data collection. and the vessel registration or turtle interactions. The instruction (1) Eligible activities. An LOA may be documentation number. inadvertently omitted paragraph issued by the RA, or the RA’s designee, [FR Doc. 2010–142 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] designation ‘‘(b)(1)’’ relating specifically to temporarily exempt a vessel, on BILLING CODE 3510–22–S to the interaction limits. Because of the which a qualified fishery research error, paragraph (b)(2), relating to the technician is collecting catch data, from process for closing the fishery if a sea the following types of fishery DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE turtle interaction limit is reached, regulations: Minimum fish size National Oceanic and Atmospheric would be inadvertently deleted when restrictions; fish possession limits; Administration this rule is made effective on January species quota closures; prohibited fish 11, 2010, if not corrected. species, not including species protected 50 CFR Part 665 This correction makes one change to under the Endangered Species Act; and the amendatory instructions to gear-specific fish possession accurately reflect effective CFR parts as restrictions. [Docket No. 080225267–91393–03] of January 11, 2010. In the amendatory (2) Eligibility criteria. Only personnel instruction for § 665.33, the phrase, from the following bodies are eligible RIN 0648–AW49 ’’...and revise paragraphs (b) and (f) to for a temporary possession LOA: read as follows:’’, is revised to read Foreign government agency; U.S. International Fisheries Regulations; ’’...and revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (f) to Government agency; U.S. state or Fisheries in the Western Pacific; read as follows:’’. territorial agency; university (or other Pelagic Fisheries; Hawaii-based educational institution accredited by a Shallow-set Longline Fishery; Correction recognized national or international Correction Accordingly, in the final rule (FR Doc. accreditation body); international treaty No. E9-29444) published on December AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries organization; or scientific institution. 10, 2009 (74 FR 65480), on page 65480, Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (3) Application requirements. To column 1, amendatory instruction Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), obtain a temporary possession LOA, an number 7 is revised to read as follows: Commerce. eligible applicant, as defined under § 665.33 [Amended] paragraph (d)(2) of this section, is ACTION: Final rule; correction. 7. In § 665.33, remove and reserve required to submit a complete paragraphs (a), (c), and (e), and revise application, which must contain the SUMMARY: This document contains a paragraphs (b)(1) and (f) to read as following information: The date of the correction to the final regulations that follows: were published in the Federal Register application; the applicant’s name, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. mailing address, and telephone number; on December 10, 2009, and are effective a statement of the purposes and goals January 11, 2010. This change ensures Dated: January 5, 2010. for which the LOA is needed; the that the process is preserved for closing James W. Balsiger, name(s) and affiliation of the fishery the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, research technicians will collect the fishery as a result of the fishery reaching National Marine Fisheries Service. data; a statement demonstrating the interaction limits for sea turtles. [FR Doc. 2010–138 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] qualifications of the research technician DATES: Effective January 11, 2010. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:10 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM 08JAR1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 1024

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Register of November 6, 2009 (74 FR 2003, for the Loligo and Illex fisheries, contains notices to the public of the proposed 57430) (FRL–8436–8). In that document, which may be used for establishing issuance of rules and regulations. The EPA proposed significant new use rules eligibility criteria for determining levels purpose of these notices is to give interested for certain chemical substances. EPA of future access to the squid fisheries. persons an opportunity to participate in the received a request to extend the This announcement alerts interested rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. comment period. EPA is hereby parties of potential eligibility criteria for reopening the comment period for 30 future access so as to discourage days. speculative entry into the squid ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION To submit comments, or access the fisheries while the Mid-Atlantic Fishery AGENCY docket, please follow the detailed Management Council (Council) instructions as provided under considers if and how access to the squid 40 CFR Part 721 ADDRESSES in the November 6, 2009 fisheries should be controlled with Federal Register document. If you have [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0252; FRL–8804–3] catch share programs. questions, consult the technical person DATES: Public comments on the ANPR RIN 2070–AB27 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION must be received no later than 5 p.m., CONTACT. Proposed Significant New Use Rules eastern standard time, on February 8, on Certain Chemical Substances; List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 2010. Reopening of Comment Period Environmental protection, Chemicals, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Hazardous substances, Reporting, and identified by RIN 0648–AY44, by any AGENCY: Environmental Protection recordkeeping requirements. one of the following methods: Agency (EPA). • Electronic Submissions: Submit all ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of Dated: December 17, 2009. electronic public comments via the comment period. Barbara A. Cunningham, Federal e-Rulemaking portal http:// Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention www.regulations.gov; SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in and Toxics. • Fax to Daniel T. Furlong, 302–674– the Federal Register of November 6, [FR Doc. 2010–115 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] 5399; or 2009, concerning proposed significant • Mail or hand deliver to Daniel T. BILLING CODE 6560–50–S new use rules for certain chemical Furlong, Executive Director, Mid- substances. EPA has received a request Atlantic Fishery Management Council, to extend the comment period. This Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE document reopens the comment period New Street, Dover, DE 19904–6790. for 30 days. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Mark the outside of the envelope DATES: Comments, identified by docket Administration ‘‘Comments on Squid Catch Share identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– Programs.’’ OPPT–2008–0252, must be received on 50 CFR Part 648 Instructions: No comments will be or before February 8, 2010. posted for public viewing until after the ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed [Docket No. 0912081428–91437–01] comment period has closed. All instructions as provided under RIN 0648–AY44 comments received are a part of the ADDRESSES in the Federal Register public record and will generally be document of November 6, 2009. Fisheries of the Northeastern United posted to http://www.regulations.gov FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and without change. All Personal Identifying general information contact: Colby Butterfish Fisheries; Control Date for Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Loligo and Illex Squid voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not Environmental Assistance Division AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries submit Confidential Business (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and Toxics, Environmental Protection Information or otherwise sensitive or Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), protected information. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Commerce. Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone NMFS will accept anonymous ACTION: Advance notice of proposed number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: comments (enter N/A in the required rulemaking (ANPR); notice to reaffirm [email protected]. fields, if you wish to remain the control date for the Loligo squid For technical information contact: Jim anonymous). You may submit (Loligo) and Illex squid (Illex) fisheries. Alwood, Chemical Control Division attachments to electronic comments in (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention SUMMARY: NMFS announces a future Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or and Toxics, Environmental Protection proposed rulemaking for the Atlantic Adobe PDF file formats only. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., mackerel, squid, and butterfish (MSB) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone fisheries. This rulemaking could Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, number: (202) 564–8974; e-mail address: institute catch share programs in the 978- 281–9272, fax 978–281–9135. [email protected]. Loligo and Illex fisheries to manage SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Loligo and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This future access in these fisheries in order Illex support important commercial document reopens the public comment to control capacity. NMFS also reaffirms fisheries along the Atlantic coast of the period established in the Federal the most recent control date of May 20, United States. The Council has

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:12 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM 08JAP1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1025

considered additional capacity controls portion of the total fishery catch to qualifying criteria may also be applied. in the Loligo and Illex fisheries since individuals, cooperatives, communities, Consideration of a control date does not 2003. On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27516), or other entities. Such programs also commit the Council or NMFS to develop NMFS published, at the request of the specify the rules of operation for the any particular management system or Council, an ANPR indicating that the program. At its October 2009 meeting, criteria for participation in the squid Council intended to consider alternative the Council clarified that its vote to fisheries. The Council may choose a allocation schemes to further control reaffirm the May 20, 2003, control date different control date, or may choose a capacity in the Loligo and Illex fisheries. also applied to the Illex fishery. This management program that does not use Accordingly, May 20, 2003, was termed notice reaffirms the Council’s intent to such a date. This notification also ‘‘ ’’ a control date, and notice was consider use of the May 20, 2003, Loligo reminds the public that interested provided that the control date may be and Illex control date in the upcoming participants should locate and preserve used for establishing eligibility criteria amendment to the MSB FMP. records that substantiate and verify their for determining levels of future access to Reaffirming the squid control date is participation in the Loligo and Illex the Loligo and Illex fisheries subject to Federal authority. intended to strongly discourage fisheries in Federal waters. At its August 2009 meeting, the speculative entry into the squid Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Council voted to reaffirm the May 20, fisheries while catch share measures are Dated: January 4, 2010. 2003, control date for the Loligo fishery developed and considered by the and to initiate an amendment to the Council. The Council could use the Samuel D. Rauch III, MSB Fishery Management Plan (FMP), squid control date to reduce potential Deputy Assistant Administrator for which would consider catch shares for excess capacity and/or latent capacity Regulatory Programs, National Marine the Loligo and Illex fisheries. The term by distinguishing established Fisheries Service. ‘‘catch share’’ describes a fishery participants from speculative entrants to [FR Doc. 2010–143 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] management program that allocates a the fishery. Additional and/or other BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:12 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM 08JAP1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1026

Notices Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER the collection of information unless it Total Burden Hours: 50. contains documents other than rules or displays a currently valid OMB control Charlene Parker, proposed rules that are applicable to the number. public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Departmental Information Collection committee meetings, agency decisions and Agricultural Marketing Service Clearance Officer. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of [FR Doc. 2010–46 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] petitions and applications and agency Title: Marketing Order Online System BILLING CODE 3410–02–P statements of organization and functions are (MOLS) Survey. examples of documents appearing in this OMB Control Number: 0581–NEW. section. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Summary of Collection: Under Section 608(e) of the Agricultural Forest Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), certain Lower Orogrande Project, Clearwater Submission for OMB Review; imported fruit, vegetable and specialty National Forest, Clearwater County, ID Comment Request crop commodities must meet the same AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. January 4, 2010. quality standards applied to ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an The Department of Agriculture has domestically-produced commodities environmental impact statement. submitted the following information when regulated by Federal marketing collection requirement(s) to OMB for orders. Reports are required under SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, review and clearance under the import regulations 7 CFR part 944.350 will prepare an Environmental Impact Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (fruits); 980.501 (vegetables) and Statement (EIS) to disclose the Public Law 104–13. Comments 999.500 (specialty crops). Using the environmental effects of improvements regarding (a) whether the collection of Marketing Order Online System on watershed, vegetation, and wildlife information is necessary for the proper (MOLS), importers and receivers can habitat in the Lower Orogrande project performance of the functions of the search, review and submit the required area on the North Fork Ranger District agency, including whether the form FV–6 ‘‘Importer’s Exempt of the Clearwater National Forest. The information will have practical utility; Commodity Form’’ prior to importation. Lower Orogrande project area is located (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate AMS has developed a customer entirely within the Orogrande Creek of burden including the validity of the watershed, which contains the methodology and assumptions used; (c) satisfaction survey, form FV–660, to gather specific information from Tamarack Creek, Jazz Creek, and Pine ways to enhance the quality, utility and Creek sub watersheds as part of the respondents currently utilizing the clarity of the information to be headwaters of the North Fork Clearwater MOLS. collected; (d) ways to minimize the River Subbasin. burden of the collection of information Need and Use of the Information: The DATES: Comments on this project must on those who are to respond, including survey will collect information on a be received, in writing, within 30 days through the use of appropriate voluntary basis, and the identities will following the publication of this notice automated, electronic, mechanical, or be kept confidential. The type of in the Federal Register. A 45-day public other technological collection information being requested on the comment period will follow the release techniques or other forms of information survey includes, among other of the draft environmental impact technology should be addressed to: Desk information, customer expectations of statement that is expected in October Officer for Agriculture, Office of the overall quality, performance, 2010. The final environmental impact Information and Regulatory Affairs, attractiveness and features of the online statement is expected in May 2011. Office of Management and Budget system, customer experience in (OMB), ADDRESSES: Written comments and [email protected] or requesting a new certificate, editing a suggestions concerning the scope of this fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental pending certificate, ease in accessing, project should be sent to Douglas Gober Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail entering data or submitting the ([email protected]), District Ranger, Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– information online and experience or North Fork Ranger District, 12730 7602. Comments regarding these problems when printing. A cover memo Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83844. information collections are best assured will accompany the survey explaining FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of having their full effect if received the purpose and providing information George Harbaugh ([email protected]), within 30 days of this notification. to access the survey through an Internet Project Leader, Lochsa Ranger District. Copies of the submission(s) may be link. Results of the survey will allow Phone: (208) 935–4260. obtained by calling (202) 720–8681. AMS to better serve the fruit, vegetable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lower An agency may not conduct or and specialty crop importing and Orogrande project area contains sponsor a collection of information handling community. approximately 21,560 acres of National unless the collection of information Description of Respondents: Business Forest lands. The legal location is displays a currently valid OMB control or other for-profit. mostly in portions of Townships 37 and number and the agency informs 38 North and Ranges 7 and 8 East, Boise potential persons who are to respond to Number of Respondents: 200. Meridian, Clearwater County, Idaho. the collection of information that such Frequency of Responses: Reporting: The proposed actions would occur on persons are not required to respond to One time. National Forest lands and are all outside

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1027

the boundaries of any inventoried may be considered in response to issues 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of roadless area or any areas considered for raised by the public during scoping. these court rulings, it is very important inclusion to the National Wilderness The Responsible Official is the Forest that those interested in this proposed System as recommended by the Supervisor of the Clearwater National action participate by the close of the 45- Clearwater National Forest Plan or by Forest, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID day comment period so that substantive any past of present legislative 83544. The Responsible Official will comments and objections are made wilderness proposals. decide if the proposed project will be available to the Forest Service at a time Purpose and Need for Action is to: (1) implemented and will document the when it can meaningfully consider them Reduce stream sediment (i.e. reduce decision and reasons for the decision in and respond to them in the final road densities and control erosion a Record of Decision. That decision will environmental impact statement. sources on roads to be retained, be subject to Forest Service Appeal To assist the Forest Service in especially in RHCAs) and remove Regulations. The responsibility for identifying and considering issues and barriers to fish passage and other preparing the DEIS and FEIS has been concerns on the proposed action, aquatic organisms to allow for delegated to Douglas Gober, District comments on the draft environmental unrestricted access to historic habitats; Ranger, North Fork Ranger District, impact statement should be as specific (2) restore white pine and larch 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83844. as possible. It is also helpful if (regeneration harvest), improve stand The Scoping Process for the EIS is comments refer to specific pages or vigor (commercial thinning), and start being intiated with this notice, and chapters of the draft statement. the trend to improve species diversity written comments regarding the analysis Comments may also address the and balance vegetative successional should be received within 30 days adequacy of the draft environmental stages across the landscape to create following the publication of this notice impact statement or the merits of the stand conditions that are resilient and in the Federal Register. Additional alternatives formulated and discussed in allow for rapid recovery after scoping will follow the release of the the statement. Reviewers may wish to disturbances; and (3) promote a trend in DEIS, expected in October 2010. refer to the Council on Environmental the balance of successional stages Preliminary Issues identified that Quality Regulations for implementing could be affected by proposed activities toward the historical range and promote the procedural provisions of the include: Air quality, economic a trend towards increased wildlife National Environmental Policy Act at 40 feasibility, fish habitat, heritage security. CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. resources, old growth habitat, soil The Proposed Action would address Comments received, including the productivity, spread of noxious weeds, improvements to the area’s watershed, names and addresses of those who threatened/endangered/sensitive and vegetation, and wildlife habitat. comment, will be considered part of the management indicator species of Watershed improvements include: (1) public record on this proposal and will Decommissioning 6 miles of system wildlife and plants, tribal treaty rights, be available for public inspection. roads and 65 miles of non-system roads; water quality, and wildlife habitat. (2) improving and/or reconstructing up Early Notice of Importance of Public (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; to 5 miles of existing roads to fix erosion Participation in Subsequent Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section problems; and (3) replacing 40 Environmental Review: A draft 21) undersized culverts. environmental impact statement will be Dated: January 4, 2010. Up to 30 miles of existing roads prepared for comment. The comment Rick Brazell, would need improvement or period on the draft environmental Forest Supervisor. reconstruction, up to 60 miles of impact statement will be 45 days from [FR Doc. 2010–109 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] existing roads would need the date the Clearwater National Forest BILLING CODE 3410–11–P reconditioning; all for logging access. publishes a legal notice in the Lewiston No new road construction is anticipated Morning Tribune (Lewiston, Idaho), the at this time. Opportunities for Forest’s paper of record. A notice of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE precommercial thinning will be availability will also be published in the identified later in the process. Federal Register. Food Safety and Inspection Service Improvements to wildlife habitat The Forest Service believes, at this would include (1) conducting vegetation early stage, it is important to give [Docket No. FSIS–2009–0037] treatments to promote better reviewers notice of several court rulings Codex Alimentarius Commission: successional stage balance. This action related to public participation in the Meeting of the Codex Committee on would correspond directly to the environmental review process. First, Milk and Milk Products proposed commercial thinning and reviewers of draft environmental impact regeneration harvest activities; (2) statements must structure their AGENCY: Office for Food Safety, USDA. restricting road access (closed to all participation in the environmental ACTION: Notice of public meeting and vehicles year round) on 14.5 miles of review of the proposal so that it is request for comments. existing roads to improve elk security. meaningful and alerts an agency to the Proposed access restrictions are a result reviewer’s position and contentions. SUMMARY: The Office for Food Safety, of a Road and Trail Analysis being Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. and the Agricultural Marketing Service completed for this project; and (3) NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, (AMS) of the U.S. Department of designating additional stands for environmental objections that could be Agriculture (USDA), are sponsoring a management as mature and old growth raised at the draft environmental impact public meeting on January 13, 2010. The forest habitats. statement stage but that are not raised objective of the public meeting is to Possible Alternatives the Forest until after completion of the final provide information and receive public Service will analyze include a ‘‘no environmental impact statement may be comments on agenda items and draft action’’ alternative in which none of the waived or dismissed by the courts. City United States positions that will be proposed activities would be of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, discussed at the 9th Session of the implemented. Additional alternatives 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Codex Committee on Milk and Milk that meet the project purpose and need Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. Products (CCMMP) of the Codex

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), 3. Report of the working group on the FSIS is able to provide information to a which will be held in Auckland, New proposed draft standard for processed much broader and more diverse Zealand, February 1–5, 2010. The cheese. audience. In addition, FSIS offers an Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety 4. Maximum levels for annatto electronic mail subscription service and the AMS recognize the importance extracts in Codex standards for milk and which provides automatic and of providing interested parties the milk products. customized access to selected food opportunity to obtain background 5. Report of the International Dairy safety news and information. This information on the 9th Session of the Federation and the International service is available at http:// CCMMP and to address items on the Organization for Standardization www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/ agenda. Working Group on Methods of Analysis email_subscription/. Options range from and Sampling for Milk and Milk recalls to export information to DATES: The public meeting is scheduled Products. regulations, directives and notices. for Wednesday, January 13, 2010, from 6. Inconsistent presentation of food Customers can add or delete 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. additive provisions in Codex standards subscriptions themselves, and have the ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be for milk and milk products. option to password protect their held in Room 3074, South Agriculture 7. Consistency of the Model Export accounts. Building, USDA, 14th Street and Certificate for Milk and Milk Products with the Generic Model Official Done at Washington, DC, on January 5, Independence Avenue, SW., 2010. Washington, DC 20250. Documents Certificate (Annex to the Guidelines for Karen Stuck, related to the 9th Session of the CCMMP Design, Production, Issuance and Use of will be accessible via the World Wide Generic Official Certificates.) U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. Web at the following address: http:// Each issue listed will be fully [FR Doc. 2010–218 Filed 1–6–10; 4:15 pm] www.codexalimentarius.net/ described in documents distributed, or BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P current.asp. to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior The U.S. Delegate to the 9th Session to the meeting. Members of the public of the CCMMP, Duane R. Spomer, AMS, may access these documents (see CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD invites interested U.S. parties to submit ADDRESSES) INVESTIGATION BOARD their comments electronically to the Public Meeting Senior Executive Service Performance following e-mail address: At the January 13, 2010 public Review Board [email protected]. meeting, draft United States positions AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on the agenda items will be described Chemical Safety and Hazard Susan M. Sausville, Chief, AMS, Dairy and discussed, and attendees will have Investigation Board. Standardization; Telephone: (202) 720– the opportunity to pose questions and ACTION: Notice. 9382; Fax: (202) 720–2643; e-mail: offer comments. Written comments may SUMMARY: This notice announces a [email protected]. be offered at the meeting or sent to change in the membership of the Senior Susan Sausville (see ADDRESSES.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Service Performance Review Written comments should state that they Board for the Chemical Safety and Background relate to activities of the 9th Session of Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). the CCMMP. Codex was established in 1963 by two DATES: Effective January 8, 2010. United Nations organizations, the Food Additional Public Notification FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Agriculture Organization and the Public awareness of all segments of Christopher Kirkpatrick, Office of World Health Organization. Through rulemaking and policy development is General Counsel, (202) 261–7600. adoption of food standards, codes of important. Consequently, in an effort to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. practice, and other guidelines ensure that minorities, women, and 4314(c)(1) requires each agency to developed by its committees, and by persons with disabilities are aware of establish, in accordance with promoting their adoption and this notice, FSIS will announce it online regulations prescribed by the Office of implementation by governments, Codex through the FSIS Web page located at Personnel Management, a performance seeks to protect the health of consumers http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/ review board (PRB). The PRB reviews and ensure that fair practices are used 2009_Notices_Index/. initial performance ratings of members in trade. FSIS will also make copies of this of the Senior Executive Service (SES) The CCMMP was established to Federal Register publication available and makes recommendations as to final elaborate codes and standards for milk through the FSIS Constituent Update, annual performance ratings for senior and milk products. The CCMMP is which is used to provide information executives. Because the CSB is a small hosted by the Government of New regarding FSIS policies, procedures, independent Federal agency, the SES Zealand. regulations, Federal Register notices, members of the CSB’s PRB are drawn Issues To Be Discussed at the Public FSIS public meetings, and other types of from other Federal agencies. Meeting information that could affect or would The Chairperson of the CSB has be of interest to constituents and appointed the following individual to The following items on the agenda for stakeholders. The Update is the CSB Senior Executive Service the 9th Session of the CCMMP will be communicated via Listserv, a free Performance Review Board: discussed during the public meeting: electronic mail subscription service for PRB Member—Gary L. Halbert, 1. Matters Referred by the Codex and industry, trade groups, consumer General Counsel, National other Codex committees and task forces. interest groups, health professionals, Transportation Safety Board. 2. Draft Amendment to the Codex and other individuals who have asked Mr. Halbert replaces Curtis Bowling Standard for Fermented Milks (CODEX to be included. The Update is also (Director of Environmental Readiness STAN 243–2003) pertaining to drinks available on the FSIS Web page. and Safety, Office of the Secretary of based on fermented milk. Through the Listserv and Web page, Defense/Chairman, Department of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1029

Defense Explosives Safety Board). The Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box prepare an environmental assessment or service of Mr. Bowling on the PRB has 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone environmental impact statement. come to a close. His appointment was (907)586–7221; fax (907)586–7249. Concurrent with the publication of originally announced in the Federal Written comments on this application this notice in the Federal Register, Register of November 15, 2007 (72 FR should be submitted to the Chief, NMFS is forwarding copies of the 64192). Permits, Conservation and Education application to the Marine Mammal William B. Wark (CSB Board Member) Division, at the address listed above. Commission and its Committee of continues to serve as the Chair of the Comments may also be submitted by Scientific Advisors. PRB, as announced in the Federal facsimile to (301)713–0376, or by email Dated: January 4, 2010. Register of November 15, 2007 (72 FR to [email protected]. P. Michael Payne, 64192). David Capozzi (Executive Please include the File No. 14486 in the Director, United States Access Board) subject line of the email comment. Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, continues to serve as a Member of the Those individuals requesting a public National Marine Fisheries Service. PRB, as announced in the Federal hearing should submit a written request [FR Doc. 2010–139 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Register of December 5, 2008 (73 FR to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 74138). Education Division at the address listed BILLING CODE 3510–22–S This notice is published in the above. The request should set forth the Federal Register pursuant to the specific reasons why a hearing on this DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). application would be appropriate. Dated: January 4, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: International Trade Administration Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, AGENCY: Department of Commerce. Attorney-Advisor. (301)713–2289. ACTION: Notice. [FR Doc. 2010–104 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BILLING CODE 6350–01–P subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Mission Statement Protection Act of 1972, as amended Medical Trade Mission to India: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the March 8–13, 2010. regulations governing the taking and Mission Description National Oceanic and Atmospheric importing of marine mammals (50 CFR Administration part 216), the Endangered Species Act of The United States Department of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 Commerce, International Trade RIN 0648–XT56 et seq.), the regulations governing the Administration, U.S. and Foreign Marine Mammals; File No. 14486 taking, importing, and exporting of Commercial Service is organizing a endangered and threatened species (50 Medical Trade Mission to New Delhi, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries CFR 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of Chennai and Mumbai, India, March 8– Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et 13, 2010. The Medical Trade Mission to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seq.). India will include representatives of Commerce. The primary objective of this U.S. medical/healthcare industry ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. application is to support multiple manufacturers (equipment and devices ongoing research programs at the ASLC, including laboratory, emergency, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that including studies of population ecology, diagnostic, physiotherapy, and the Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), 301 diet and nutrition, reproductive orthopedic equipment, and healthcare Railway Avenue, PO Box 1329, Seward, physiology, toxicology and health of information technology) and service Alaska 99664–1329 (Dr. Ian Dutton, marine mammals. The ASLC requests providers. The mission will introduce Responsible Party), has applied in due the annual collection, receipt, import U.S. suppliers to prospective end-users form for a permit to receive, import, and and export of unlimited samples from and partners whose needs and export marine mammal specimens for 4000 individual cetaceans and 5,000 capabilities are targeted to each U.S. scientific research purposes. individual pinnipeds under NMFS participant’s business objectives. The DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail jurisdiction for continued research on delegates will meet with Indian comments must be received on or before these species. Samples would be government officials to obtain first-hand February 8, 2010. collected under existing permits in the information about regulations, policies ADDRESSES: The application and related countries of origin, would be the and procedures and will visit healthcare documents are available for review by product of a legal subsistence hunt, facilities. The Commercial Service in selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public incidental by-catch, routine husbandry/ India (CS India) will organize Comment’’ from the Features box on the medical examinations of public display appointments and briefings in New Applications and Permits for Protected animals in the U.S., or opportunistic Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai, India’s Species (APPS) home page, https:// carcass collection, or would be samples major healthcare industry hubs. U.S. apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting taken under other permitted research participants will have the opportunity File No. 14486 from the list of available activities. No takes of live animals, to interact with U.S. Embassy and applications. direct or indirect, are requested in this Consulate officials and CS India These documents are also available application. ASLC requests the permit healthcare specialists to discuss upon written request or by appointment be issued for five years. industry developments, opportunities, in the following offices: In compliance with the National and marketing strategies. Permits, Conservation and Education Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 Medical Fair India, one of the largest Division, Office of Protected Resources, U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial medical tradeshows in India, coincides NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room determination has been made that the in time and location with the last stop 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone activity proposed is categorically of the Trade Mission. Trade Mission (301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; and excluded from the requirement to participants, therefore, can exhibit at the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

tradeshow, in the U.S. Pavilion, as part specialty and super-specialty hospitals chains have their headquarters in these of their program. Companies wishing to depend on the import of high-end cities. These include the Apollo Group exhibit in the U.S. pavilion at the medical equipment for over 65 percent in Chennai, and Wockhard and the Tata Medical Fair can register through the CS of their needs, and this sector is growing Institute of Fundamental Research in India office to receive a discount. at a rate of 15 percent annually. Mumbai. Medical tourism is one of the major Commercial Setting The three cities on the mission external drivers of growth in India’s itinerary are the regional hubs for the The Indian healthcare industry is healthcare sector. India treated 450,000 Indian medical/healthcare industry. experiencing a rapid transformation and foreign patients in 2007 and the End-users often prefer to be serviced by is emerging as a promising market for expected increase in this sector is regional distributors/agents based in U.S. suppliers of high-end products. contributing to improved quality these cities, rather than country-wide The Indian healthcare market, currently controls. India’s National Accreditation distributors. In all three cities the at $35 billion annually, is expected to Board for Hospitals (NABH) operates delegates will attend U.S. Embassy or reach more than $75 billion annually by accreditation programs for healthcare Consulate industry briefings and take 2012. The growth in affluence of more organizations. Some private hospitals part in networking events and business than 300 million middle-income are also applying for certification from matchmaking appointments. international accreditation organizations consumers is creating demand for Participation in the mission will include higher standards of healthcare. The such as the Joint Commission International (JCI). Accreditation by the following: changing demographic profile and the • rise of lifestyle-related diseases have NABH and JCI has ensured better Pre-travel briefings/webinars on altered the health seeking behavior of standards of healthcare in hospitals. subjects including business practices in India and specifics on the medical/ the consumer. While private insurance Mission Goals covers only 10% of the populations, healthcare industry; The goal of the Medical Trade • coverage is growing at 40% per year. Embassy/Consulate briefings on the Mission to India is to (1) familiarize the The medical infrastructure in India is business climate, political scenario, and U.S. companies with the current medical/healthcare industry in New insufficient for the population, with healthcare situation as well as the demand for hospitals and beds far Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai; developments taking place; (2) • exceeding supply. The problem is acute Pre-scheduled meetings with introduce U.S. companies to appropriate potential partners, distributors, end- in rural India, which accounts for over government officials in India to learn half of India’s population, while about users, or local industry contacts in New about various regulatory procedures and Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai; 80 percent of available hospital beds are policies; and (3) introduce companies to located in the urban centers. Both • Meetings with Indian Government potential end-users, representatives and officials; government and private operators have partners. major expansion plans to meet demand • Tour of public and private hospitals and increase quality. Healthcare in India Mission Scenario and interaction with senior hospital is provided through primary care The first stop on the mission itinerary staff; facilities and secondary and tertiary care is New Delhi, the capital. In meetings • Networking receptions in three hospitals. While the public sector with representatives of the Ministry of cities of the trade mission; provides primary and secondary care, Health, Drug Controller General Office, • Built-up 9sq meter exhibitor booth * tertiary care hospitals are owned and and Department of Pharmaceuticals, the in the U.S. Pavilion at Medical Fair managed by both government and U.S. mission members will learn about India, Mumbai. (Option two only.) private sector. Over the next 5–6 years, policies, regulations and opportunities * Contact us for price of booth. 150–200 tertiary hospital projects are in the country’s healthcare industry, Proposed Mission Timetable expected to be constructed, including such as expansion plans of the Fortis hospitals of varying capacities. Most and Max hospital groups. Mission participants will be Indian healthcare facilities use imported Chennai and Mumbai are the second encouraged to arrive Saturday, March 6, medical equipment for diagnosis, and third stops of the mission, located 2010 to allow time to adjust to their new treatment and surgery with over 35% of in southern and western India surroundings before the mission the imports coming from the U.S. New respectively. Several corporate hospital program begins on Monday, March 8.

Monday, March 8 ...... New Delhi Embassy briefing by U.S. Departments of Commerce and State Meetings with Government of India ministries. One-on-one business appointments. Evening: Networking reception. Tuesday, March 9 ...... New Delhi/Chennai Industry briefing. One-on-one business appointments. Hospital or other site visit. Check-out of the hotel. Evening flight to Chennai. Wednesday, March 10 ...... Chennai Breakfast briefing by the U.S. Commercial Service at hotel. Hospital visit and meeting with senior management, including the procurement executives. One-on-one business appointments. Evening: Networking reception. Thursday, March 11 ...... Chennai/Mumbai One-on-one business appointments. Check-out of the hotel. Afternoon flight to Mumbai. Friday, March 12 ...... Mumbai

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1031

Breakfast briefing by the U.S. Commercial Service at hotel. One-on-one business appointments or exhibition at Medical Fair India. Evening: Networking reception. Saturday, March 13 ...... Mumbai Hospital chain visit and meeting with senior management. Or Medical Fair India 2010. Evening: Check-out of the hotel or remain in Mumbai for Medical Fair India. Depart for Mumbai International airport for onward travel.

Participation Requirements representative (large firm or SME) is Contacts All parties interested in participating $250. U.S. Commercial Service Healthcare in the Medical Trade Mission to India Expenses for lodging, some meals, Team: Ms. Jetta DeNend, International must complete and submit an incidentals, and travel (except for Trade Specialist, U.S. Commercial application for consideration by the transportation to and from meetings) Service, 33 Whitehall St. 22nd Floor, Department of Commerce. All will be the responsibility of each New York, NY 10004, Ph: 212–809– applicants will be evaluated on their mission participant. 2644/Fax: 212–809–268, E-mail: ability to meet certain conditions and Conditions for Participation [email protected]. best satisfy the selection criteria as U.S. Commercial Service in India: Mr. • outlined below. The mission is open on An applicant must submit a Srimoti Mukherji, U.S. Commercial a first come first served basis to 15 completed and signed mission Service, New Delhi, Ph: 91–11– qualified U.S. companies. Additional application and supplemental 23472000, ext 2226, Fax: 91–11–2331 applications will be considered as time application materials, including 5172, [email protected]. and space permits. adequate information on the company’s products and/or services, primary Lisa Huot, Fees and Expenses market objectives, and goals for Global Trade Programs, Commercial Service Trade Missions Program. After a company has been selected to participation. [FR Doc. 2010–108 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] participate on the mission, a payment to • Each applicant must also certify the Department of Commerce in the that the products and services it seeks BILLING CODE P form of a participation fee is required. to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, The participation fees reflect two DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE options: marketed under the name of a U.S. firm Option 1: March 8–13, 2010. and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. International Trade Administration Participation in the Trade Mission in all content. (A–533–820) three cities: New Delhi, Chennai, and Selection Criteria for Participation Mumbai. The participation fee will be Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Selection will be based on the $4,600 for large firms and $3,900 for a Products from India: Notice of following criteria: small or medium-sized enterprise Preliminary Results of Antidumping 1 • (SME) , this includes one principal Suitability of a company’s products Duty Administrative Review, and Intent representative. The fee for each or services to the mission’s goals. to Rescind in Part additional firm representative (large • Applicant’s potential for business firm or SME) is $500. in India, including likelihood of exports AGENCY: Import Administration, Option 2: March 8–11, 2010 resulting from the trade mission. International Trade Administration, participate in the Trade Mission in two • Consistency of the applicant’s goals Department of Commerce. cities: New Delhi and Chennai and and objectives with the stated scope of SUMMARY: In response to requests from March 12–14, exhibit at the Medical the trade mission. petitioners,1 the Department of Fair India 2010 in Mumbai. The Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is Any partisan political activities conducting an administrative review of participation fee for New Delhi-Chennai (including political contributions) of an and exhibiting in the Fair in Mumbai the antidumping order on certain hot– applicant are entirely irrelevant to the rolled carbon steel flat products from $6,800 ($3,600 Trade Mission fee + selection process. $3,200 for 9 square meter booth space 2) India (‘‘Indian Hot–Rolled’’) for large firms and $ 6,100 ($2,900 Trade Timeframe for Recruitment and manufactured by Essar Steel Limited Mission fee + $3,200 for 9 square meter Applications (‘‘Essar’’), Ispat Industries Limited (‘‘Ispat’’), JSW Steel Limited (‘‘JSW’’), and booth space) for an SME, which Mission recruitment will be Tata Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’). The period includes one principal representative. conducted in an open and public of review (‘‘POR’’) covers December 1, The fee for each additional firm manner, including posting in the 2007, through November 30, 2008. We Federal Register, the Commerce 1 An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer preliminarily determine to calculate an Department trade mission calendar employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small antidumping duty margin based upon (http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/ business under SBA regulations (see http:// the application of adverse facts available www.sba.gov/services/contracting_opportunities/ tmcal.html), and other Internet Web (‘‘AFA’’) with respect to Essar’s sales. sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, sites; press releases to general and trade affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when We also preliminarily determine that media; direct mail; notices by industry determining business size. The dual pricing Ispat, JSW and Tata had no entries of trade associations and other multiplier schedule reflects the Commercial Service’s user fee subject merchandise subject to review schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (for groups; and publicity at industry under this antidumping order during additional information see http://www.export.gov/ meetings, symposia, conferences, and newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html). 2 Minimum booth space is 9 square meters. trade shows. Recruitment for the 1 The petitioners are the United States Steel Companies can take larger space for which cost will mission will begin immediately and Corporation Steel, Nucor Corporation, and be calculated accordingly. conclude no later than January 31, 2010. ArcelorMittal USA Inc. (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

the POR. If these preliminary results are Department released to the parties U.S. Contrary to the Department’s adopted in our final results of this Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) instructions, Essar did not respond to review, we will instruct U.S. Customs data showing a single entry of subject the Department’s questionnaire. Instead, and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess merchandise into the United States.2 On by letter dated June 15, 2009, Essar antidumping duties on all appropriate February 25, 2009, Tata informed the informed the Department that it would entries of subject merchandise during Department that it made no shipments not be able to actively participate in this the POR. of subject merchandise that were administrative review, except with Interested parties are invited to entered into the United States during respect to briefing and any hearing that comment on these preliminary results. the POR, and that the entry shown in might be requested. Essar reiterated its We intend to issue the final results no the CBP data was not produced by Tata, position that it was not the appropriate later than 120 days from the date of but was in fact produced and sold by respondent and requested that the publication of this notice, pursuant to another Indian manufacturer. On March Department rescind this review with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 4, 2009, Essar filed a response to the respect to Essar. 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). CBP data and Tata’s February 25, 2009, On September 10, 2009, the EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2010. submission, stating that Essar made a Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy sale during the POR, but Essar believed administrative review from September Zhang or James Terpstra, AD/CVD that this was a domestic sale, rather 2, 2009, to December 31, 2009. See Operations Office 3, Import than a sale to the United States. On Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Administration, International Trade March 17, 2009, the Department issued Products from India: Notice of Administration, U.S. Department of an antidumping questionnaire to Tata. Extension of Time Limits for Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution On March 19, 2009, Tata submitted its Preliminary Results of Antidumping Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; response to the Department and Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR telephone: (202) 482–1168 and (202) included as an attachment several e– 46569 (September 2, 2009). 482–3965, respectively. mails regarding the sale in question to demonstrate that Essar was the exporter SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Period of Review of the single shipment. Tata argued that Background Essar had actual knowledge at the time The POR covered by this review is that it made the sale in India to Tata December 1, 2007, through November On December 3, 2001, the Department 30, 2008. published in the Federal Register the Steel’s affiliate, Tata Ryerson, that the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot– merchandise was to be exported to the Scope of the Order Rolled. See Notice of Amended Final United States. Therefore, Tata argued The merchandise subject to this order Antidumping Duty Determination of that Essar is the appropriate exporter for is certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat Sales at Less Than Fair Value and this shipment, and that the Department products of a rectangular shape, of a Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot– should rescind the instant review of width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Tata. See Tata’s March 19, 2009, clad, plated, nor coated with metal and India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) submission at 2. In its April 3, 2009, whether or not painted, varnished, or (‘‘Amended Final Determination’’). On submission, Essar reiterated that coated with plastics or other non– December 1, 2008, the Department because it treated the subject sale as a metallic substances, in coils (whether or published in the Federal Register a domestic sale, it had no shipments to not in successively superimposed notice titled ‘‘Opportunity to Request the United States during the POR and it layers), regardless of thickness, and in Administrative Review’’ of the should not be a respondent in this straight lengths, of a thickness of less antidumping duty order on Indian Hot– proceeding. See Essar’s April 3, 2009, than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring Rolled. See Antidumping or submission at 5. at least 10 times the thickness. Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or On May 8, 2009, the Department sent Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled Suspended Investigation; Opportunity a letter to Essar, stating that, after review products rolled on four faces or in a To Request Administrative Review, 73 of record information from CBP, and the closed box pass, of a width exceeding FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On submissions of both Essar and Tata, the 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, December 31, 2008, petitioners Department determined that Essar had and of a thickness of not less than 4 requested an administrative review in knowledge that the merchandise it sold mm, not in coils and without patterns the antidumping duty order on Indian was destined for the United States in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 Hot–Rolled, for subject merchandise before the terms of sale were finalized. mm is not included within the scope of produced or exported by Ispat, JSW, Because the Department considered the this order. Tata, and Essar. On February 2, 2009, shipment of subject merchandise to be Specifically included in the scope of the Department published a notice of made by Essar, it notified Essar that it this order are vacuum–degassed, fully initiation of antidumping duty would be required to respond to the stabilized (commonly referred to as administrative review of Indian Hot– Department’s antidumping interstitial–free (‘‘IF’’)) steels, high– Rolled for the period December 1, 2007, questionnaire. See Letter from James strength low–alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and through November 30, 2008. See Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD, the substrate for motor lamination Initiation of Antidumping and Office 3, Import Administration to steels. IF steels are recognized as low– Countervailing Duty Administrative Essar, dated May 8, 2009. carbon steels with micro–alloying levels Reviews and Request for Revocation in of elements such as titanium or niobium 2 See Memorandum to File, Re: ‘‘Certain Hot- Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009) Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India,’’ (also commonly referred to as (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On February 6, Subject: ‘‘Customs and Border Protection Data for columbium), or both, added to stabilize 2009, Ispat, Essar, and JSW each Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,’’ carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA informed the Department that they did from Dennis McClure, International Trade steels are recognized as steels with Compliance Analyst, through James Terpstra, not have shipments of the subject Program Manager, and Melissa Skinner, Office micro–alloying levels of elements such merchandise to the United States during Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, dated as chromium, copper, niobium, the POR. On February 19, 2009, the February 19, 2009 (‘‘Hot-Rolled Memo’’). vanadium, and molybdenum. The

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1033

substrate for motor lamination steels classified outside chapter 72 of the Ispat, JSW, and Tata did not have contains micro–alloying levels of HTSUS. entries of subject merchandise into the elements such as silicon and aluminum. The merchandise subject to this order United States subject to this Steel products included in the scope is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at antidumping review. Therefore, of this order, regardless of definitions in subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, consistent with our practice, we United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, preliminarily determine to rescind this in which: i) iron predominates, by 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, review with respect to Ispat, JSW and weight, over each of the other contained 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, Tata. We invite comments from elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, interested parties on this intent to percent or less, by weight; and iii) none 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, rescind. 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, of the elements listed below exceeds the Use of Adverse Facts Available quantity, by weight, respectively 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, indicated: 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, Section 776(a) of the Act provides 1.80 percent of manganese, or 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, that, the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 2.25 percent of silicon, or 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 1.00 percent of copper, or 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, information is not on the record, or (2) 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, an interested party or any other person 1.25 percent of chromium, or 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, (A) withholds information that has been 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, requested, (B) fails to provide 0.40 percent of lead, or 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. information within the deadlines 1.25 percent of nickel, or Certain hot–rolled carbon steel covered established, or in the form and manner 0.30 percent of tungsten, or by this order, including: vacuum– requested by the Department, subject to 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or degassed fully stabilized; high–strength subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 0.10 percent of niobium, or low–alloy; and the substrate for motor of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 0.15 percent of vanadium, or lamination steel may also enter under proceeding, or (D) provides information 0.15 percent of zirconium. the following tariff numbers: that cannot be verified as provided by All products that meet the physical 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, section 782(i) of the Act. and chemical description provided 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, Where the Department determines above are within the scope of this order 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, that a response to a request for unless otherwise excluded. The 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, information does not comply with the following products, by way of example, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, request, section 782(d) of the Act are outside or specifically excluded 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, provides that the Department will so from the scope of this order: 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and inform the party submitting the • Alloy hot–rolled carbon steel 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise response and will, to the extent products in which at least one of may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, practicable, provide that party the the chemical elements exceeds 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, opportunity to remedy or explain the those listed above (including, e.g., 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and deficiency. If the party fails to remedy American Society for Testing and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS the deficiency within the applicable Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications subheadings are provided for time limits and subject to section 782(e) A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)). convenience and customs purposes, the of the Act, the Department may • Society of Automotive Engineers Department’s written description of the disregard all or part of the original and (‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel merchandise subject to this order is subsequent responses, as appropriate. Institute (‘‘AISI’’) grades of series dispositive. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 2300 and higher. the Department ‘‘shall not decline to Intent to Rescind and Preliminary • Ball bearings steels, as defined in consider information that is submitted Partial Rescission of Administrative the HTSUS. by an interested party and is necessary Review with Respect to Ispat, JSW, and • Tool steels, as defined in the to the determination but does not meet Tata HTSUS. all applicable requirements established Ispat and JSW have each submitted by the administering authority’’ if the • Silico–manganese (as defined in the timely–filed certifications indicating information is timely, can be verified, is HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel that they had no shipments of subject not so incomplete that it cannot be used, with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 merchandise to the United States during and if the interested party acted to the percent. the POR. See Hot–Rolled Memo. The best of its ability in providing the • ASTM specifications A710 and Department confirmed Ispat and JSW’s information. Where all of these A736. assertions with the CBP data. With conditions are met, the statute requires respect to the one entry of subject the Department to use the information • United States Steel (‘‘USS’’) merchandise into the United States supplied if it can do so without undue Abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR during the POR, the Department difficulties. 400, USS AR 500). determined that the entry was produced Section 776(b) of the Act further • All products (proprietary or and sold by Essar because Essar had provides that the Department may use otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM knowledge that merchandise it was an adverse inference in applying the specification (sample specifications: selling was destined for the United facts otherwise available when a party ASTM A506, A507). States before the terms of sale were has failed to cooperate by not acting to • Non–rectangular shapes, not in finalized. In making this determination, the best of its ability to comply with a coils, which are the result of having the Department concluded, based upon request for information. Such an adverse been processed by cutting or record evidence that the sale was not inference may include reliance on stamping and which have assumed made by Tata. As a result, we information derived from the petition, the character of articles or products preliminarily find that, during the POR, the final determination, a previous

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

administrative review, or other Instead of responding to the before the Department may make an information placed on the record. Department’s questionnaire, Essar stated adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping Section 776(c) of the Act provides that it would not respond. Specifically, Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final that, when the Department relies on Essar stated that ‘‘it will not be able to Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, secondary information rather than on actively participate in this 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. information obtained in the course of an administrative review, except with United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 investigation or review, it shall, to the respect to briefing and any hearing in (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’). In this case, extent practicable, corroborate that this review.’’ See Essar’s June 15, 2009, the Department finds that Essar did not information from independent sources letter to the Department at 2. Therefore, act to the best of its ability in this that are reasonably at its disposal. the Department preliminarily proceeding, within the meaning of Secondary information is defined as determines that necessary information is section 776(b) of the Act, because it ‘‘{i}nformation derived from the petition not available on the record to serve as could have responded to the that gave rise to the investigation or the basis for the calculation of Essar’s Department’s requests for information, review, the final determination margin. See section 776(a)(1) of the Act. but decided not to do so. In fact, Essar concerning the subject merchandise, or We also determine that Essar withheld made no attempt to provide the any previous review under section 751 requested information and, as a result, Department with any information after concerning the subject merchandise.’’ has significantly impeded this it was informed by the Department that See Statement of Administrative Action, proceeding. See section 776(a)(2)(A) and it would be a mandatory respondent in reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103–216, at (C) of the Act; see Certain Lined Paper this review. Therefore, an adverse 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means Products from India: Notice of Final inference is warranted in selecting from that the Department will satisfy itself Results of the First Antidumping Duty the facts otherwise available with that the secondary information to be Administrative Review, 74 FR 17149 respect to Essar. See Nippon, 337 F.3d used has probative value. Id. To (April 14, 2009), and accompanying at 1382–83. corroborate secondary information, the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Section 776(b) of the Act provides Department will, to the extent Comment 2; see also Notice of Final that the Department may use as AFA, practicable, examine the reliability and Determination of Sales at Less Than information derived from: 1) the relevance of the information to be used. Fair Value and Affirmative Final petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous Application of Adverse Facts Available Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice review; or 4) any other information On May 8, 2009, the Department sent From Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, placed on the record. The Department’s a letter to Essar, stating that record 2006), and the accompanying Issues and practice, when selecting an AFA rate evidence indicated that Essar had Decision Memorandum at Comment 18; from among the possible sources of knowledge that the merchandise it sold and Notice of Final Determination of information, has been to ensure that the to Tata Ryerson was destined for the Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to United States before the terms of sale Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon effectuate the statutory purposes of the were finalized. Accordingly, the and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from adverse facts available rule to induce Department required Essar to respond to Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August respondents to provide the Department the Department’s antidumping 30, 2002) (‘‘Wire Rod from Brazil’’). with complete and accurate information questionnaire in accordance with the Because Essar did not submit the in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain Department’s practice. Under section questionnaire response requested by the Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 772(a) of the Act, the basis for export Department, and notified the Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of price is the price at which the first party Department that it would not participate Antidumping Duty Administrative in the chain of distribution who has in this administrative review, there is no Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 knowledge of the U.S. destination of the information provided by Essar that (November 7, 2006). merchandise sells the subject would enable the Department to In order to ensure that the margin is merchandise, either directly to a U.S. calculate a margin for Essar. Thus, sufficiently adverse so as to induce purchaser or to an intermediary such as section 782(d) of the Act does not apply future cooperation, the Department a trading company. The party making in this case. preliminarily determines to assign Essar such a sale, with knowledge of the According to section 776(b) of the an AFA rate of 28.25 percent. This rate destination, is the appropriate party to Act, if the Department finds that an is Essar’s cash deposit rate from the be reviewed. The Department’s test for interested party fails to cooperate by not investigation and represents the highest determining knowledge is whether the acting to the best of its ability to comply calculated margin from the investigation relevant party knew or should have with requests for information, the in this case as adjusted to account for known that the merchandise was for Department may use an inference that is countervailing duties imposed to offset export to the United States. See SAA. adverse to the interests of that party in export subsidies. The Department The record evidence in this review selecting from the facts otherwise determines that the selected margin will shows that Essar learned of the U.S. available. See Notice of Final Results of prevent Essar from benefitting from its destination of the merchandise on the Antidumping Duty Administrative failure to cooperate with the same day that it offered an initial sales Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, Department’s requests for information. quote for coiled steel to Tata Ryerson, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13, See Notice of Amended Final and that Essar knew that Tata Ryerson 2005); and Wire Rod from Brazil 67 FR Antidumping Duty Determination of would slit the coil and ship it the 55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). Sales at Less Than Fair Value and United States. Therefore, the Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot– Department determined that Essar sold ensure that the party does not obtain a Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the subject merchandise to Tata Ryerson more favorable result by failing to India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001). and at the time of the sale, had cooperate than if it had cooperated Additionally, we find that this rate is knowledge or should have known its fully.’’ See SAA at 870. Furthermore, reasonably high enough to encourage merchandise was ultimately destined ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the participation in future segments of the for the United States. part of a respondent is not required proceeding.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1035

Corroboration of Information relevance. Where circumstances investigation, we are making no further Section 776(c) of the Act requires the indicate that the selected margin is not adjustments under section 772(c)(1)(C) Department to corroborate, to the extent appropriate as AFA, the Department of the Act. will disregard the margin and determine practicable, secondary information used Preliminary Results of the Review as facts available. Secondary an appropriate margin. For example, in As a result of this review, we information is defined as information Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final preliminarily find that the following derived from the petition that gave rise Results of Antidumping Duty dumping margin exists for the period to the investigation or review, the final Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, December 1, 2007, through November determination concerning the subject 6814 (February 22, 1996), the 30, 2008. merchandise, or any previous review Department disregarded the highest under section 751 concerning the margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor Rate Adjusted for subject merchandise. See 19 CFR Producer/Manufacturer Export Subsidies 351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at to facts available) because the margin 870. The SAA clarifies that was based on another company’s Essar ...... 28.25 ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the uncharacteristic business expense Department will satisfy itself that the resulting in an unusually high margin. Disclosure secondary information to be used has Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited The Department will disclose these probative value. See the SAA at 870. preliminary results to the parties within The SAA also states that independent or judicially invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d five days of the date of publication of sources used to corroborate such this notice in accordance with 19 CFR evidence may include, for example, 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997). In this case, there are no 351.224(b). published price lists, official import circumstances present to indicate that statistics and customs data, and Comments the selected margin is not appropriate as information obtained from interested Interested parties are invited to facts available. We have decided to use parties during the particular comment on the preliminary results and the highest cash deposit rate calculated investigation. Id. To corroborate may submit case briefs and/or written for Essar from any prior segment of secondary information, the Department comments within 30 days of the date of these proceedings as AFA. The will, to the extent practicable, examine publication of this notice. See 19 CFR Department considers this dumping the reliability and relevance of the 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited margin relevant for use as AFA for this information used. Id. to issues raised in the case briefs, will review because this margin is calculated Unlike other types of information be due five days later, pursuant to 19 based on Essar’s own information in the such as input costs or selling expenses, CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit original investigation.3 Moreover, there there are no independent sources for case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding is no information on the record of this calculated dumping margins. The only are requested to submit with each review that demonstrates that 28.25 source for an antidumping margin is the argument (1) a statement of the issue, percent is not an appropriate AFA rate investigation and prior administrative and (2) a brief summary of the for Essar. The Department finds that the determinations. If the Department argument. Parties are requested to use of the rate of 28.25 percent as an chooses as facts available a calculated provide a summary of the arguments not AFA rate is sufficiently high to ensure dumping margin from the investigation to exceed five pages and a table of that Essar does not benefit from failing or a prior segment of the proceeding, it statutes, regulations, and cases cited. to cooperate in our review by refusing is not necessary to question the See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Additionally, to respond to our questionnaire. See reliability of the margin. See Carbazole parties are requested to provide their Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Violet Pigment 23 from India: case brief and rebuttal briefs in Steel Plate Products from the Republic Preliminary Results of Antidumping electronic format (e.g., Microsoft Word, of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR pdf, etc.). Interested parties, who wish Duty Administrative Review and 52012 (September 8, 2008) (‘‘Carbazole to request a hearing or to participate if Rescission of Administrative Review in Violet Pigment 23 from India’’); see also one is requested, must submit a written Part, 73 FR 15132, 15133 (March 21, Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof request to the Assistant Secretary for 2008); see also Carbazole Violet Pigment from France, et al.: Preliminary Results Import Administration within 30 days 23 from India. Thus, the Department of Antidumping Duty Administrative of the date of publication of this notice. considers the 28.25 percent rate Reviews, Partial Rescission of Requests should contain: (1) the party’s corroborated ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent name, address, and telephone number; in accordance with the Act. to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and (2) the number of participants; and (3) Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, Adjustment for Export Subsidies a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), As noted above, in the original CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and investigation, we subtracted the portion hearing will be limited to those raised Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final of the countervailing duty rate in case and rebuttal briefs. The Results of Antidumping Duty attributable to export subsidies (8.03 Department will issue the final results Administrative Reviews, Rescission of percent) from the antidumping margin of this review, including the results of Administrative Reviews in Part, and (36.53 percent) in order to calculate the its analysis of issues raised in any such Determination To Revoke Order in Part, cash–deposit rate of 28.25 percent. written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15, Because the AFA rate we selected for not later than 120 days after the date of 2004). this review is the adjusted cash–deposit publication of this notice. With respect to the relevance aspect rate we calculated for Essar in the of corroboration, however, the Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will consider information 3 This rate is adjusted to 28.25 percent to account reasonably at its disposal to determine for the export subsidy rate found in the Department will determine, and CBP whether a margin continues to have countervailing duty investigation. shall assess, antidumping duties on all

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

appropriate entries. The Department be 23.87 percent, the all–others rate Clearance Division, Regulatory intends to issue appropriate assessment established in the LTFV. See Amended Information Management Services, instructions directly to CBP 15 days Final Determination. These cash deposit Office of Management, publishes that after the publication of the final results requirements, when imposed, shall notice containing proposed information of this review. We will instruct CBP to remain in effect until further notice. collection requests prior to submission assess antidumping duties on all of these requests to OMB. Each Notification to Importers appropriate entries covered by this proposed information collection, review. The final results of this review This notice serves as a preliminary grouped by office, contains the shall be the basis for the assessment of reminder to importers of their following: (1) Type of review requested, antidumping duties on entries of responsibility under 19 CFR e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or merchandise covered by the final results 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of of these reviews and for future deposits regarding the reimbursement of the collection; (4) Description of the of estimated duties, where applicable. antidumping and countervailing duties need for, and proposed use of, the The Department clarified its prior to liquidation of the relevant information; (5) Respondents and ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on entries during this review period. frequency of collection; and (6) May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Failure to comply with this requirement Reporting and/or Recordkeeping Countervailing Duty Proceedings: could result in the Secretary’s burden. OMB invites public comment. Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 presumption that reimbursement of The Department of Education is FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment antidumping and countervailing duties especially interested in public comment Policy Notice’’). This clarification will occurred and the subsequent assessment addressing the following issues: (1) Is apply to entries of subject merchandise of double antidumping and this collection necessary to the proper during the POR produced by companies countervailing duties. functions of the Department; (2) will included in these final results of review These preliminary results of review this information be processed and used for which the reviewed companies did are issued and published in accordance in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate not know that the merchandise they with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the of burden accurate; (4) how might the sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Department enhance the quality, utility, trading company, or exporter) was Dated: December 30, 2009. and clarity of the information to be destined for the United States. In such Ronald K. Lorentzen, collected; and (5) how might the instances, we will instruct CBP to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Department minimize the burden of this liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– collection on the respondents, including others rate if there is no rate for the Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–128 Filed 01–07–10; 8:45 am] through the use of information intermediary involved in the technology. transaction. See Assessment Policy BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Notice for a full discussion of this Dated: January 5, 2010. clarification. James Hyler, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Acting Director, Information Collection Cash Deposit Requirements Clearance Division, Regulatory Information The following deposit rates will be Notice of Proposed Information Management Services, Office of Management. Collection Requests effective upon publication of the final Institute of Education Sciences results of this administrative review for AGENCY: Department of Education. all shipments of hot–rolled carbon steel Type of Review: New. SUMMARY: flat products from India entered, or The Acting Director, Title: National Title I Study of withdrawn from warehouse, for Information Collection Clearance Implementation and Outcomes: Early consumption on or after the publication Division, Regulatory Information Childhood Language Development date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) Management Services, Office of (ECLD). of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Management, invites comments on the Frequency: One time. the company listed above will be the proposed information collection Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal rate established in the final results of requests as required by the Paperwork Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. this review, except if the rate is less Reduction Act of 1995. Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de DATES: Interested persons are invited to Burden: minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; submit comments on or before March 9, Responses: 16. (2) for previously reviewed or 2010. Burden Hours: 36. investigated companies not listed above, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Abstract: The study is being the cash deposit rate will continue to be 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of conducted as part of the National the company–specific rate published for 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires Assessment of Title I, mandated by Title the most recent final results in which that the Office of Management and I, Part E, Section 1501 of the Elementary that manufacturer or exporter Budget (OMB) provide interested and Secondary Education Act. The data participated; (3) if the exporter is not a Federal agencies and the public an early obtained by this information collection firm covered in these reviews, a prior opportunity to comment on information will provide a sampling frame of eligible review, or the original less–than-fair– collection requests. OMB may amend or schools for the National Title I Study of value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the waive the requirement for public Implementation and Outcomes: Early manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate consultation to the extent that public Childhood Language Development will be the rate established for the most participation in the approval process (ECLD). Once school districts have been recent final results for the manufacturer would defeat the purpose of the indentified to participate in the study, of the merchandise; and (4) if neither information collection, violate State or they will be asked to complete a short the exporter nor the manufacturer is a Federal law, or substantially interfere form providing information about Title firm covered in this or any previous with any agency’s ability to perform its I schools in their district. This review or the LTFV conducted by the statutory obligations. The Acting information includes the percent of Department, the cash deposit rate will Director, Information Collection student in a selected school that are

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1037

eligible for free-or-reduced-price lunch, crises and emergencies, as well as other guardians and their children following percent of third graders who are catastrophic events. The Readiness and an emergency; and (5) a written plan for classified as reading proficient on State Emergency Management for Schools improving LEA capacity to sustain the assessments in 2009–10, grade levels in (REMS) grant program provides funds to emergency management process through selected schools, and number of local educational agencies (LEAs) to ongoing training and the continual students in each grade. Based on the establish an emergency management review of policies and procedures. information provided, up to ten schools process that focuses on reviewing and Competitive Preference Priority: For per district will be randomly selected to strengthening emergency management FY 2010 and any subsequent year in participate in the full-scale study. The plans, within the framework of the four which we make awards from the list of U.S. Department of Education has phases of emergency management unfunded applicants from this Mathematica Policy Research to conduct (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, competition, this priority is a this study. Response, and Recovery). The program competitive preference priority. Under Requests for copies of the proposed also provides resources to LEAs to 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an information collection request may be provide training for staff on emergency additional five points to an application accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, management procedures and requires that meets the competitive preference by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending that LEAs develop comprehensive all- priority. Collections’’ link and by clicking on link hazards emergency management plans This priority is: number 4195. When you access the in collaboration with community Priority for Applicants That Have Not information collection, click on partners including local law Previously Received a Grant Under The ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. enforcement; public safety, public REMS Program (CFDA 84.184E). Written requests for information should health, and mental health agencies; and Under this priority, we give be addressed to U.S. Department of local government. competitive preference to applications from LEAs that have not previously Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Priorities: These priorities are from received a grant under this program LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. the notice of final priorities and (CFDA 84.184E). Applicants, including Requests may also be electronically requirements for this program, educational service agencies (ESAs), mailed to [email protected] or faxed published in the Federal Register on that have received funding under this to 202–401–0920. Please specify the March 11, 2009 (74 CFR 10656). program directly, or as the lead agency complete title of the information Absolute Priority: For FY 2010 and or as a partner in a consortium collection when making your request. any subsequent year in which we make application under this program, will not Comments regarding burden and/or awards from the list of unfunded meet this priority. Under a consortium the collection activity requirements applicants from this competition, this application, all members of the LEA should be electronically mailed to priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 consortium must meet this criterion to [email protected]. Individuals who CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. meet this priority. use a telecommunications device for the Final Requirements: These deaf (TDD) may call the Federal This priority is: LEA Projects Designed To Develop requirements are from the notice of final Information Relay Service (FIRS) at and Enhance Local Emergency priorities and requirements for this 1–800–877–8339. Management Capacity. program, published in the Federal [FR Doc. 2010–136 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Under this priority, we support LEA Register on March 11, 2009 (74 FR BILLING CODE 4000–01–P projects designed to create, strengthen, 10656). The following requirements or improve emergency management apply to all applications submitted plans at the LEA and school-building under this competition: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION levels and build the capacity of LEA 1. Partner Agreements. To be staff so that the LEA can continue the considered for a grant award, an Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; implementation of key emergency applicant must include in its Overview Information; Readiness and management functions after the period application an agreement that details Emergency Management for Schools; of Federal funding. Projects must the participation of each of the Notice Inviting Applications for New include a plan to create, strengthen, or following five community-based Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 improve emergency management plans, partners: The law enforcement agency, at the LEA and school-building levels, the public safety or emergency Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and within the framework of the four management agency, the public health (CFDA) Number: 84.184E. phases of emergency management: agency, the mental health agency, and Dates: Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, the head of the applicant’s local Applications Available: January 8, Response, and Recovery. Projects must government (for example the mayor, city 2010. also include: (1) Training for school manager, or county executive). The Deadline for Transmittal of personnel in emergency management agreement must include a description of Applications: February 26, 2010. procedures; (2) coordination, and the each partner’s roles and responsibilities Deadline for Intergovernmental use of partnerships, with local law in improving and strengthening Review: April 27, 2010. enforcement, public safety or emergency emergency management plans at the Full Text of Announcement management, public health, and mental LEA and school-building levels, a health agencies, and local government description of each partner’s I. Funding Opportunity Description to assist in the development of commitment to the continuation and Purpose of Program: Past emergency management plans at the continuous improvement of emergency emergencies, such as the events of LEA and school-building levels; (3) a management plans at the LEA and September 11, 2001, Hurricanes Katrina plan to sustain the local partnerships school-building levels, and the signature and Rita, and emergencies related to after the period of Federal assistance; (4) of an authorized representative of the other natural and man-made hazards, a plan for communicating school LEA and each partner acknowledging reinforce the need for schools and emergency management policies and the agreement. For consortium communities to plan for traditional reunification procedures for parents and applications, each LEA to be served by

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

the grant must submit a complete set of must agree to develop a written food the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools partner agreements with the signature of defense plan that includes the four discretionary grant programs published an authorized representative of the LEA phases of emergency management in the Federal Register on December 4, and each corresponding partner (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, 2006 (71 CFR 70369). acknowledging the agreement. Response, and Recovery) and is Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 If one or more of the five partners designed to safeguard the LEA’s food apply to all applicants except federally listed in this requirement is not present supply, including all food storage and recognized Indian tribes. in the applicant’s community, or cannot preparation facilities and delivery areas feasibly participate, the agreement must within the LEA. II. Award Information explain the absence of each missing 5. Individuals with Disabilities. Type of Award: Discretionary grants. partner. To be considered eligible for Applicants must agree to develop plans Estimated Available Funds: funding, however, an application must that take into consideration the $29,000,000. include a signed agreement between the communication, medical, and Contingent upon the availability of LEA, a law enforcement partner, and at evacuation needs of individuals with funds and the quality of applications, least one of the other required partners disabilities within the schools in the we may make additional awards later in (public safety or emergency LEA. FY 2010 and in FY 2011 from the list management agency, public health 6. Implementation of the National of unfunded applicants from this agency, mental health agency, or the Incident Management System (NIMS). competition. head of the local government). Applicants must agree to implement Estimated Range of Awards: Applications that fail to include the their grant in a manner consistent with $150,000–$600,000. required agreement, including the implementation of the NIMS in their Estimated Average Size of Awards: information on partners’ roles and communities. Applicants must include $150,000 for a small-size LEA (1–20 responsibilities and on their in their applications an assurance that education facilities); $300,000 for a commitment to continuation and they have met, or will complete, all medium-size LEA (21–75 education continuous improvement (with current NIMS requirements by the end facilities); and $600,000 for a large-size signatures and explanations for missing of the grant period. LEA (76 or more education facilities). signatures as specified above), will not Because DHS’ determination of NIMS Estimated Number of Awards: 96. be read. requirements may change from year to Although this program requires year, applicants must refer to the most Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. partnerships with other parties, recent list of NIMS requirements administrative direction and fiscal published by DHS when submitting Project Period: Up to 24 months. control for the project must remain with their applications. Information about the Budgets should be developed for a the LEA. FY 2009 NIMS requirements for tribal single award with a project period of up 2. Coordination with State or Local governments and local jurisdictions, to 24 months. No continuation awards Homeland Security Plan. All emergency including LEAs, may be found at: will be provided. management plans receiving funding http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ III. Eligibility Information under this program must be coordinated nims/FY2009_NIMS_Implementation with the Homeland Security Plan of the _Chart.pdf. 1. Eligible Applicants: LEAs, State or locality in which the LEA is including charter schools that are located. To ensure that emergency Note: An LEA’s NIMS compliance must be considered LEAs under State law, that services are coordinated, and to avoid achieved in close coordination with the local government and with recognition of the first do not currently have an active grant duplication of effort within States and responder capabilities held by the LEA and under the REMS program (CFDA localities, applicants must include in the local government. As LEAs are not 84.184E). For the purpose of this their applications an assurance that the traditional response organizations, first eligibility requirement, a grant is LEA will coordinate with and follow the responder services will typically be provided considered active until the end of the requirements of their State or local to LEAs by local fire and rescue departments, grant’s project or funding period, Homeland Security Plan for emergency emergency medical service providers, and including any extension of those services and initiatives. law enforcement agencies. This traditional periods that extend the grantee’s 3. Infectious Disease Plan. To be relationship must be acknowledged in achieving NIMS compliance in an integrated authority to obligate funds. This considered for a grant award, applicants NIMS compliance plan for the local eligibility requirement is from the notice must agree to develop a written plan government and the LEA. LEA participation of final eligibility requirement designed to prepare the LEA for a in the NIMS preparedness program of the published in the Federal Register on possible infectious disease outbreak, local government is essential in ensuring that December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70369). such as pandemic influenza. Plans must first responder services are delivered to 2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This address the four phases of emergency schools in a timely and effective manner. competition does not require cost management (Prevention-Mitigation, Additional information about NIMS sharing or matching. Preparedness, Response, and Recovery) implementation is available at: http:// 3. Other: and include a plan for disease www.fema.gov/emergency/nims. a. Equitable Participation by Private surveillance (systematic collection and Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131. School Children and Teachers in Grant analysis of data that lead to action being Applicable Regulations: (a) The Program Activities. taken to prevent and control a disease), Education Department General Section 9501 of the ESEA, requires school closure decision making, Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in that State educational agencies (SEAs), business continuity (processes and 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, LEAs, or other entities receiving funds procedures established to ensure that 85, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The regulations under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools essential functions can continue during in 34 CFR part 299. (c) The notice of and Communities Act provide for the and after a disaster), and continuation of final priorities and requirements, equitable participation of private school educational services. published in the Federal Register on children, their teachers, and other 4. Food Defense Plan. To be March 11, 2009 (74 CFR 10656). (d) The educational personnel in private schools considered for a grant award, applicants notice of final eligibility requirement for located in areas served by the grant

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1039

recipient. In order to ensure that grant (including dates and times) about how • The hours of operation of the e- program activities address the needs of to submit your application Grants Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday private school children, LEAs must electronically, or in paper format by until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 engage in timely and meaningful mail or hand delivery, please refer to a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, consultation with private school section IV.6. Other Submission Washington, DC time. Please note that, officials during the design and Requirements of this notice. because of maintenance, the system is development of the program. This We do not consider an application unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on consultation must take place before any that does not comply with the deadline Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and decision is made that affects the requirements. between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and opportunities of eligible private school Individuals with disabilities who 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, children, teachers, and other education need an accommodation or auxiliary aid DC time. Any modifications to these personnel to participate in grant in connection with the application hours are posted on the e-Grants Web program activities. process should contact the person listed site. In order to ensure equitable under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION • You will not receive additional participation of private school children, CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If point value because you submit your teachers, and other educational the Department provides an application in electronic format, nor personnel, an LEA must consult with accommodation or auxiliary aid to an will we penalize you if you submit your private school officials on such issues individual with a disability in application in paper format. as: Hazards and vulnerabilities unique connection with the application • You must submit all documents to private schools in the LEA’s service process, the individual’s application electronically, including all information area, training needs, and existing remains subject to all other you typically provide on the following emergency management plans and requirements and limitations in this forms: The Application for Federal resources already available at private notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Assistance (SF 424), the Department of schools. Review: April 27, 2010. Education Supplemental Information for b. Maintenance of Effort. 4. Intergovernmental Review: This SF 424, Budget Information—Non- Section 9521 of the ESEA permits competition is subject to Executive Construction Programs (ED 524), and all LEAs to receive a grant only if the SEA Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 necessary assurances and certifications. finds that the combined fiscal effort per CFR part 79. Information about You must attach any narrative sections student or the aggregate expenditures of Intergovernmental Review of Federal of your application as files in a .DOC the LEA and the State with respect to Programs under Executive Order 12372 (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF the provision of free public education is in the application package for this (Portable Document) format. If you by the LEA for the preceding fiscal year competition. upload a file type other than the three was not less than 90 percent of the 5. Funding Restrictions: We reference file types specified in this paragraph or combined fiscal effort or aggregate regulations outlining funding submit a password protected file, we expenditures for the second preceding restrictions in the Applicable will not review that material. fiscal year. Regulations section of this notice. • Your electronic application must 6. Other Submission Requirements: comply with any page limit IV. Application and Submission Applications for grants under this Information requirements described in this notice. competition may be submitted • Prior to submitting your electronic 1. Address To Request Application electronically or in paper format by mail application, you may wish to print a Package: You can obtain an application or hand delivery. copy of it for your records. package via the Internet. To obtain a a. Electronic Submission of • After you electronically submit copy via the Internet, use the following Applications. your application, you will receive an address: http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/ If you choose to submit your automatic acknowledgment that will apply/grantapps/index.html. application to us electronically, you include a PR/Award number (an Individuals with disabilities can must use e-Application, accessible identifying number unique to your obtain a copy of the application package through the Department’s e-Grants Web application). in an accessible format (e.g., braille, site at: http://e-grants.ed.gov. • Within three working days after large print, audiotape, or computer While completing your electronic submitting your electronic application, diskette) by contacting the person listed application, you will be entering data fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the under Accessible Format in section VIII online that will be saved into a Application Control Center after of this notice. database. You may not e-mail an following these steps: 2. Content and Form of Application electronic copy of a grant application to (1) Print SF 424 from e-Application. Submission: Requirements concerning us. (2) The applicant’s Authorizing the content of an application, together Please note the following: Representative must sign this form. with the forms you must submit, are in • Your participation in e-Application (3) Place the PR/Award number in the the application package for this is voluntary. upper right hand corner of the hard- competition. • You must complete the electronic copy signature page of the SF 424. 3. Submission Dates and Times: submission of your grant application by (4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the Applications Available: January 8, 2010. 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on Application Control Center at (202) Deadline for Transmittal of the application deadline date. E- 245–6272. Applications: February 26, 2010. Application will not accept an • We may request that you provide us Applications for grants under this application for this competition after original signatures on other forms at a competition may be submitted 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on later date. electronically using the Electronic Grant the application deadline date. Application Deadline Date Extension Application System (e-Application) Therefore, we strongly recommend that in Case of System Unavailability: If you accessible through the Department’s e- you do not wait until the application are prevented from electronically Grants site, or in paper format by mail deadline date to begin the application submitting your application on the or hand delivery. For information process. application deadline date because e-

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Application is unavailable, we will (4) Any other proof of mailing If your application is not evaluated or grant you an extension of one business acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. not selected for funding, we notify you. day to enable you to transmit your Department of Education. 2. Administrative and National Policy application electronically, by mail, or by If you mail your application through Requirements: We identify hand delivery. We will grant this the U.S. Postal Service, we do not administrative and national policy extension if— accept either of the following as proof requirements in the application package (1) You are a registered user of e- of mailing: and reference these and other Application and you have initiated an (1) A private metered postmark. requirements in the Applicable electronic application for this (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by Regulations section of this notice. competition; and the U.S. Postal Service. We reference the regulations outlining (2) (a) E-Application is unavailable for If your application is postmarked after the terms and conditions of an award in 60 minutes or more between the hours the application deadline date, we will the Applicable Regulations section of of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, not consider your application. this notice and include these and other DC time, on the application deadline specific conditions in the GAN. The Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not GAN also incorporates your approved date; or uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before (b) E-Application is unavailable for relying on this method, you should check application as part of your binding any period of time between 3:30 p.m. with your local post office. commitments under the grant. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, 3. Reporting: At the end of your on the application deadline date. c. Submission of Paper Applications project period, you must submit a final We must acknowledge and confirm by Hand Delivery. performance report, including financial these periods of unavailability before If you submit your application in information, as directed by the granting you an extension. To request paper format by hand delivery, you (or Secretary. For this competition, you this extension or to confirm our a courier service) must deliver the must also submit an interim report 12 acknowledgment of any system original and two copies of your months after the award date. The unavailability, you may contact either application by hand, on or before the Secretary may also require more (1) the person listed elsewhere in this application deadline date, to the frequent performance reports under 34 notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Department at the following address: CFR 75.720(c). For specific CONTACT (see VII. Agency Contact) or (2) U.S. Department of Education, requirements on reporting, please go to the e-Grants help desk at 1–888–336– Application Control Center, Attention: http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ 8930. If e-Application is unavailable (CFDA Number 84.184E), 550 12th appforms/appforms.html. due to technical problems with the Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center 4. Performance Measure: We have system and, therefore, the application Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. identified the following key deadline is extended, an e-mail will be The Application Control Center Government Performance and Results sent to all registered users who have accepts hand deliveries daily between Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance initiated an e-Application. 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, measure for assessing the effectiveness Extensions referred to in this section DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, of the REMS grant program: The average apply only to the unavailability of e- and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or number of National Incident Application. If e-Application is Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If Management System (NIMS) course available, and, for any reason, you are you mail or hand deliver your completions by key personnel at the unable to submit your application application to the Department— start of the grant compared to the electronically or you do not receive an (1) You must indicate on the envelope average number of NIMS course automatic acknowledgment of your and—if not provided by the completions by key personnel at the end submission, you may submit your Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 of the grant. application in paper format by mail or the CFDA number, including suffix This GPRA measure constitutes the hand delivery in accordance with the letter, if any, of the competition under Department’s indicator of success for instructions in this notice. which you are submitting your this program. Applicants for a grant b. Submission of Paper Applications application; and under this program are advised to give by Mail. (2) The Application Control Center careful consideration to this measure in If you submit your application in will mail to you a notification of receipt designing their proposed project, paper format by mail (through the U.S. of your grant application. If you do not including considering how data for the Postal Service or a commercial carrier), receive this grant notification within 15 measure will be collected. Grantees will you must mail the original and two business days from the application be required to collect and report, in copies of your application, on or before deadline date, you should call the U.S. their interim and final performance the application deadline date, to the Department of Education Application reports, baseline data and data on their Department at the following address: Control Center at (202) 245–6288. progress with regard to this measure. U.S. Department of Education, V. Application Review Information VII. Agency Contact Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.184E), LBJ Basement Selection Criteria: The selection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., criteria for this competition are from 34 Strizzi, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202–4260. CFR 75.210 and are listed in the 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 201, You must show proof of mailing application package. Denver, CO 80204–3514. Telephone: consisting of one of the following: VI. Award Administration Information (303) 346–0924 or by e-mail: (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service [email protected]. postmark. 1. Award Notices: If your application If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll (2) A legible mail receipt with the is successful, we notify your U.S. free, at 1–800–877–8339. date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and Postal Service. send you a Grant Award Notification VIII. Other Information (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or (GAN). We may notify you informally, Accessible Format: Individuals with receipt from a commercial carrier. also. disabilities can obtain this document

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1041

and a copy of the application package in awards from the list of unfunded program, published in the Federal an accessible format (e.g., braille, large applicants from this competition, this Register on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30778). print, audiotape, or computer diskette) priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 on request to the program contact CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only Requirement 1—Coordination of person listed under FOR FURTHER applications that meet this priority. Activities INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of This priority is: Recipients of a grant under the Grants this notice. Increasing student access to quality for the Integration of Schools and mental health care by developing Electronic Access to This Document: Mental Health Systems program are innovative approaches to link local You can view this document, as well as required to coordinate project activities school systems with the local mental all other documents of this Department with projects funded under the health system. A program funded under published in the Federal Register, in Department of Health and Human this absolute priority must include all of text or Adobe Portable Document Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Format (PDF) on the Internet at the the following activities: (1) Enhancing, improving, or Health Services Administration’s following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ Mental Health Transformation State fedregister. To use PDF you must have developing collaborative efforts between Infrastructure Grants (MHTSIG) program Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is school-based service systems and (CFDA 93.243), if a grantee’s State available free at this site. mental health service systems to provide, enhance, or improve receives a MHTSIG award. If a recipient Note: The official version of this document of a grant under the Grants for the is the document published in the Federal prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services to students. Integration of Schools and Mental Register. Free Internet access to the official Health Systems program has received or edition of the Federal Register and the Code (2) Enhancing the availability of crisis of Federal Regulations is available on GPO intervention services, appropriate receives a grant under the Department of Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ referrals for students potentially in need Education’s Readiness and Emergency index.html. of mental health services, and ongoing Management for Schools (REMS) mental health services. program (CFDA 84.184E), formerly Dated: January 4, 2010. (3) Providing training for the school known as the Emergency Response and Kevin Jennings, personnel and mental health Crisis Management program, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug- professionals who will participate in the recipient must coordinate mental health Free Schools. program. service activities under this grant with [FR Doc. 2010–130 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] (4) Providing technical assistance and those planned under its REMS grant. BILLING CODE 4000–01–P consultation to school systems and Projects funded by this program must mental health agencies and families complement, rather than duplicate, participating in the program. existing or ongoing efforts. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (5) Providing linguistically appropriate and culturally competent Requirement 2—Safe Schools/Healthy Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; services. Students Recipients Excluded From Overview Information; Grants for the (6) Evaluating the effectiveness of the Receiving Awards Integration of Schools and Mental program in increasing student access to Health Systems; Notice Inviting Former or current recipients under quality mental health services, and the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Applications for New Awards for Fiscal making recommendations to the Year (FY) 2010 program (CFDA 84.184L) are not eligible Secretary about sustainability of the to receive a Grant for the Integration of Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program. Schools and Mental Health Systems. (CFDA) Number: 84.215M. Under this competition we are Recipients of Safe Schools/Healthy particularly interested in applications Dates: Students awards are responsible for that address the following priority. completing a scope of work under that Applications Available: January 8, Invitational Priority: For FY 2010 and program that is very similar to the 2010. any subsequent year in which we make activities required under the Grants for Deadline for Transmittal of awards from the list of unfunded the Integration of Schools and Mental Applications: February 22, 2010. applicants from this competition, this Health Systems program. By restricting Deadline for Intergovernmental priority is an invitational priority. the applicant pool to eliminate former Review: April 23, 2010. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not or current grantees under the Safe give an application that meets this Full Text of Announcement Schools/Healthy Students program, we invitational priority a competitive or I. Funding Opportunity Description will be able to focus Federal funds on absolute priority over other entities that have not yet received Purpose of Program: The purpose of applications. Federal support to develop and the Grants for the Integration of Schools This priority is: and Mental Health Systems program is Low-Achieving Schools. implement strong linkages with other to increase student access to high- Projects that are designed to entities in their communities for the quality mental health care by dramatically improve student provision of mental health services to developing innovative approaches that achievement in schools identified for students. link school systems with the local corrective action or restructuring under Applicants may compete for both the mental health system. Title I of the ESEA or in high schools Grants for the Integration of Schools and Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR with graduation rates of less than 60 Mental Health Systems and Safe 75.105(b)(2)(iv), this priority is from percent through either comprehensive Schools/Healthy Students programs in section 5541 of the Elementary and interventions or targeted approaches to the same year; if applicants are deemed Secondary Education Act of 1965, as reform. eligible for funding in both grant amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7269). Additional Requirements: The competitions, the applicant will receive Absolute Priority: For FY 2010 and following requirements are from the the larger and more comprehensive of any subsequent year in which we make notice of final requirements for this the awards.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Requirement 3—Preliminary of unfunded applicants from this the content of an application, together Interagency Agreement competition. with the forms you must submit, are in Estimated Range of Awards: Applicants for an award under the the application package for this $150,000–$400,000. Grants for the Integration of Schools and program. Estimated Average Size of Awards: 3. Submission Dates and Times: Mental Health Systems program must $347,800. Applications Available: January 8, develop and submit with their Estimated Number of Awards: 17. 2010. applications a preliminary interagency Deadline for Transmittal of agreement (IAA). The IAA must contain Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applications: February 22, 2010. the signatures of an authorized Applications for grants under this Project Period: Up to 24 months. representative of at least (1) one or more program may be submitted Budgets should be developed for a State or local educational agencies or electronically using the Electronic Grant single award with a project period of up Indian Tribes; (2) one or more juvenile Application System (e-Application) to 24 months. No continuation awards justice authorities; and (3) one or more accessible through the Department’s e- will be provided. State or local public mental health Grants site, or in paper format by mail agencies. This preliminary IAA would III. Eligibility Information or hand delivery. For information confirm the commitment of these (including dates and times) about how partners to complete the work under the 1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs), local to submit your application proposed project, if funded. If the electronically, or in paper format by applicant is funded, recipients will educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are considered mail or hand delivery, please refer to complete a final IAA as required by section IV. 6. Other Submission section 5541(e) of the Elementary and LEAs under State law, and Indian Tribes. Additional eligibility Requirements of this notice. Secondary Education Act of 1965, as requirements are listed elsewhere in this We do not consider an application amended (ESEA). The final IAA must be notice under Additional Requirements that does not comply with the deadline completed and submitted to us, signed in section I. of this notice. requirements. by all parties, no later than 12 months 2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This Individuals with disabilities who after the award date. program does not require cost sharing or need an accommodation or auxiliary aid Applications that do not include the matching. in connection with the application proposed preliminary IAA with all of b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This process should contact the person listed the required signatures will be rejected program involves supplement-not- under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION and not be considered for funding. supplant funding requirements in CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If Requirement 4—Inclusion of Parental accordance with section 5541(i) of the the Department provides an Consent Considerations in Final IAA ESEA. accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in The final Interagency Agreement IV. Application and Submission connection with the application (IAA) must include a description of Information process, the individual’s application policies and procedures that would 1. Address To Request Application remains subject to all other ensure appropriate parental or caregiver Package: You can obtain an application requirements and limitations in this consent for any planned services, package via the Internet or from the notice. pursuant to State or local laws or other Education Publications Center (ED Deadline for Intergovernmental requirements. Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, Review: April 23, 2010. Requirement 5—Provision of Direct use the following address: http:// 4. Intergovernmental Review: This Services www.ed.gov/programs/mentalhealth/ program is subject to Executive Order applicant.html. To obtain a copy from 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Grant funds under this program must ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the part 79. Information about not be used to provide direct services to following: Education Publications Intergovernmental Review of Federal students. Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD Programs under Executive Order 12372 Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7269. 20794–1398. Telephone, toll free: 1– is in the application package for this Applicable Regulations: (a) The 877–433–7827. FAX: (301) 470–1244. If program. 5. Funding Restrictions: Grant funds Education Department General you use a telecommunications device under this program must not be used to Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1–877– provide direct services to students or 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 576–7734. families. Funding restrictions for this 85, 97, 98, 99, and 299. (b) The notice You can contact ED Pubs at its Web competition can be found in the notice of final requirements for this program, site, also: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ of final requirements published in the published in the Federal Register on edpubs.html or at its e-mail address: Federal Register on May 30, 2006 (71 May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30778). [email protected]. If you request an application from ED FR 30778). We reference additional Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 Pubs, be sure to identify this program or regulations outlining funding apply to all applicants except Federally competition as follows: CFDA number restrictions in the Applicable recognized Indian Tribes. 84.215M. Regulations section of this notice. Individuals with disabilities can 6. Other Submission Requirements: II. Award Information obtain a copy of the application package Applications for grants under this Type of Award: Discretionary grants. in an accessible format (e.g., braille, program may be submitted Estimated Available Funds: large print, audiotape, or computer electronically or in paper format by mail $5,913,000. diskette) by contacting the person or or hand delivery. Contingent upon the availability of team listed under Accessible Format in a. Electronic Submission of funds and the quality of applications, section VIII of this notice. Applications. we may make additional awards later in 2. Content and Form of Application If you choose to submit your FY 2010 and in FY 2011 from the list Submission: Requirements concerning application to us electronically, you

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1043

must use e-Application, accessible identifying number unique to your hand delivery in accordance with the through the Department’s e-Grants Web application). instructions in this notice. site at: http://e-grants.ed.gov. • Within three working days after b. Submission of Paper Applications While completing your electronic submitting your electronic application, by Mail. application, you will be entering data fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the If you submit your application in online that will be saved into a Application Control Center after paper format by mail (through the U.S. database. You may not e-mail an following these steps: Postal Service or a commercial carrier), electronic copy of a grant application to (1) Print SF 424 from e-Application. you must mail the original and two us. (2) The applicant’s Authorizing copies of your application, on or before Please note the following: Representative must sign this form. the application deadline date, to the • Your participation in e-Application (3) Place the PR/Award number in the Department at the following address: is voluntary. U.S. Department of Education, • upper right hand corner of the hard- You must complete the electronic copy signature page of the SF 424. Application Control Center, Attention: submission of your grant application by (4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the (CFDA Number 84.215M), LBJ Basement 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on Application Control Center at (202) Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., the application deadline date. E- 245–6272. Washington, DC 20202–4260. Application will not accept an • We may request that you provide us You must show proof of mailing application for this competition after original signatures on other forms at a consisting of one of the following: 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on later date. (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service the application deadline date. Application Deadline Date Extension postmark. Therefore, we strongly recommend that in Case of System Unavailability: If you (2) A legible mail receipt with the you do not wait until the application are prevented from electronically date of mailing stamped by the U.S. deadline date to begin the application submitting your application on the Postal Service. process. application deadline date because e- (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or • The hours of operation of the e- Application is unavailable, we will receipt from a commercial carrier. Grants Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday grant you an extension of one business (4) Any other proof of mailing until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 day to enable you to transmit your acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, application electronically, by mail, or by Department of Education. Washington, DC time. Please note that, hand delivery. We will grant this If you mail your application through because of maintenance, the system is extension if— the U.S. Postal Service, we do not unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on (1) You are a registered user of e- accept either of the following as proof Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and of mailing: between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and Application and you have initiated an electronic application for this (1) A private metered postmark. 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by DC time. Any modifications to these competition; and (2) (a) E-Application is unavailable for the U.S. Postal Service. hours are posted on the e-Grants Web If your application is postmarked after site. 60 minutes or more between the hours • of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, the application deadline date, we will You will not receive additional not consider your application. point value because you submit your DC time, on the application deadline application in electronic format, nor date; or Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not will we penalize you if you submit your (b) E-Application is unavailable for uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before any period of time between 3:30 p.m. relying on this method, you should check application in paper format. with your local post office. • You must submit all documents and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, electronically, including all information on the application deadline date. c. Submission of Paper Applications you typically provide on the following We must acknowledge and confirm by Hand Delivery. forms: The Application for Federal these periods of unavailability before If you submit your application in Assistance (SF 424), the Department of granting you an extension. To request paper format by hand delivery, you (or Education Supplemental Information for this extension or to confirm our a courier service) must deliver the SF 424, Budget Information—Non- acknowledgment of any system original and two copies of your Construction Programs (ED 524), and all unavailability, you may contact either application by hand, on or before the necessary assurances and certifications. (1) the person listed elsewhere in this application deadline date, to the You must attach any narrative sections notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Department at the following address: of your application as files in a .DOC CONTACT (see VII. Agency Contact) or (2) U.S. Department of Education, (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF the e-Grants help desk at 1–888–336– Application Control Center, Attention: (Portable Document) format. If you 8930. If e-Application is unavailable (CFDA Number 84.215M), 550 12th upload a file type other than the three due to technical problems with the Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center file types specified in this paragraph or system and, therefore, the application Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. submit a password protected file, we deadline is extended, an e-mail will be The Application Control Center will not review that material. sent to all registered users who have accepts hand deliveries daily between • Your electronic application must initiated an e-Application. 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, comply with any page limit Extensions referred to in this section DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, requirements described in this notice. apply only to the unavailability of and Federal holidays. • Prior to submitting your electronic e-Application. If e-Application is Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of application, you may wish to print a available, and, for any reason, you are Paper Applications: If you mail or hand copy of it for your records. unable to submit your application deliver your application to the • After you electronically submit electronically or you do not receive an Department— your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment of your (1) You must indicate on the envelope automatic acknowledgment that will submission, you may submit your and—if not provided by the include a PR/Award number (an application in paper format by mail or Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

the CFDA number, including suffix the effectiveness of the Grants for the Dated: January 4, 2010. letter, if any, of the competition under Integration of Schools and Mental Kevin Jennings, which you are submitting your Health Systems program: Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug- application; and a. The percentage of schools served by Free Schools. (2) The Application Control Center the grant that have comprehensive, [FR Doc. 2010–140 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] will mail to you a notification of receipt detailed linkage protocols in place; and BILLING CODE 4000–01–P of your grant application. If you do not b. The percentage of school personnel receive this grant notification within 15 served by the grant who are trained to business days from the application make appropriate referrals to mental DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION deadline date, you should call the U.S. health services. Department of Education Application These two measures constitute the Office of Postsecondary Education; Control Center at (202) 245–6288. Department’s measures of success for Overview Information; Fund for the this program. Consequently, applicants Improvement of Postsecondary V. Application Review Information for a grant under this program are Education (FIPSE)—Special Focus 1. Selection Criteria: The selection advised to give careful consideration to Competition: European Union-United criteria for this program are from 34 CFR these two measures in conceptualizing States Atlantis Program Notice Inviting 75.210 of EDGAR and are listed in the the approach and evaluation of their Applications for New Awards for Fiscal application package. proposed project. If funded, applicants Year (FY) 2010 2. Review and Selection Process: will be asked to collect and report data Additional factors we consider in in their interim and final performance Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance selecting an application for an award are reports about progress toward these (CFDA) Number: 84.116J. the equitable distribution of grants measures. The Secretary will also use Dates: among the geographical regions of the this information to respond to the Applications Available: January 8, United States and among urban, evaluation requirements concerning this 2010. suburban, and rural populations. program established in section 5541(f) Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 8, 2010. VI. Award Administration Information of the ESEA. For specific requirements on grantee reporting, please go to Deadline for Intergovernmental 1. Award Notices: If your application http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ Review: June 10, 2010. is successful, we notify your U.S. appforms/appforms.html. Full Text of Announcement Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification VII. Agency Contact I. Funding Opportunity Description (GAN). We may notify you informally, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Purpose of Program: The purpose of also. Sarah Allen, U.S. Department of the program is to provide grants to If your application is not evaluated or Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., eligible applicants to improve not selected for funding, we notify you. room 10079, Potomac Center Plaza postsecondary education. 2. Administrative and National Policy (PCP), Washington, DC 20202–6450. Priorities: This competition includes Requirements: We identify Telephone: (202) 245–7875 or by e-mail: one absolute priority and one administrative and national policy [email protected]. invitational priority. requirements in the application package If you use a TDD, call the Federal Absolute Priority: This priority is from and reference these and other Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877– the notice of final priorities for this requirements in the Applicable 8339. program, published in the Federal Regulations section of this notice. Register on December 11, 2009 (74 FR We reference the regulations outlining VIII. Other Information 65764). For FY 2010, this priority is an the terms and conditions of an award in Accessible Format: Individuals with absolute priority. Under 34 CFR the Applicable Regulations section of disabilities can obtain this document 75.105(c)(3) we consider only this notice and include these and other and a copy of the application package in applications that meet this absolute specific conditions in the GAN. The an accessible format (e.g., braille, large priority. GAN also incorporates your approved print, audiotape, or computer diskette) This priority is: application as part of your binding on request to the program contact European Union (EU)-United States commitments under the grant. person listed under FOR FURTHER (U.S.) Atlantis Program—(84.116J). 3. Reporting: At the end of your INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of This priority supports the formation project period, you must submit a final this notice. of educational consortia between the EU performance report, including financial Electronic Access to This Document: and U.S. institutions. To meet this information, as directed by the You can view this document, as well as priority, the applicant must propose a Secretary. You must also submit an all other documents of this Department project that encourages cooperation in interim progress report twelve months published in the Federal Register, in the coordination of curricula; the after the award date. This report should text or Adobe Portable Document exchange of students, if pertinent to provide the most current performance Format (PDF) on the Internet at the grant activities; and the opening of and financial expenditure information following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ educational opportunities between the as directed by the Secretary under 34 fedregister. To use PDF you must have U.S. and EU Member States. In order to CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is be eligible for an award under this require more frequent performance available free at this site. priority, the applicant in the U.S. must reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For be a U.S. institution and the applicant specific requirements on reporting, Note: The official version of this document in the EU must be an EU institution. is the document published in the Federal please go to http://www.ed.gov/fund/ Register. Free Internet access to the official EU institutions participating in any grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. edition of the Federal Register and the Code consortium proposal under this priority 4. Performance Measures: The of Federal Regulations is available on GPO may apply to the Directorate-General for Secretary has established the following Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ Education and Culture (DG EAC), key performance measures for assessing index.html. European Commission, for funding

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1045

under a separate but parallel EU III. Eligibility Information in any other font (including Times competition. 1. Eligible Applicants: IHEs or Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be Invitational Priority: For FY 2010, this combinations of IHEs and other public accepted. priority is an invitational priority. and private nonprofit institutions and The 6,000-word limit applies only to Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not agencies. the application narrative. It does not give an application that meets this 2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This apply to the Application for Federal invitational priority a competitive or program does not require cost sharing or Assistance form (SF 424); the absolute preference over other matching. supplemental information form required applications. by the Department of Education; the This priority is: IV. Application and Submission budget summary form (ED Form 524); Information and the assurances, certifications, and Projects that support exchanges survey forms. In addition, the 6,000- between EU institutions and U.S. 1. Address to Request Application word limit does not apply to the one- minority-serving institutions to increase Package: You can obtain an application page abstract, appendices, the short the participation of underrepresented package via the Internet or from the bios, letters of commitment, line item minorities in the program. Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, budget, or a table of contents. You must Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138– include your complete response to the 1138d. use the following address: http://e- grants.ed.gov. To obtain a copy from ED selection criteria in the program Applicable Regulations: The Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: narrative. Education Department General Education Publications Center, P.O. Box We will reject your application if you Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398. exceed the 6,000-word limit. 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827. 3. Submission Dates and Times: 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. FAX: (301) 470–1244. If you use a Applications Available: January 8, Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 telecommunications device for the deaf 2010. apply to all applicants except federally (TDD), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734. Deadline for Transmittal of recognized Indian tribes. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web Applications: April 8, 2010. Applications for grants under this Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 site, also: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ apply to institutions of higher education edpubs.html or at its e-mail address: program must be submitted (IHEs) only. [email protected]. electronically using the Electronic Grant If you request an application from ED Application System (e-Application) II. Award Information Pubs, be sure to identify this program or accessible through the Department’s competition as follows: CFDA number e-Grants site. For information (including Type of Award: Discretionary grants. 84.116J. dates and times) about how to submit Estimated Available Funds: The Individuals with disabilities can your application electronically, or in Administration has requested obtain a copy of the application package paper format by mail or hand delivery $47,424,000 for the FIPSE programs, of in an accessible format (e.g., braille, if you qualify for an exception to the which we intend to allocate $2,000,000 large print, audiotape, or computer electronic submission requirement, for new awards for the EU-U.S. Atlantis diskette) by contacting the person or please refer to section IV.6. Other program in FY 2010. The actual level of team listed under Accessible Format in Submission Requirements of this notice. funding, if any, depends on final section VIII of this notice. We do not consider an application congressional action. However, we are 2. Content and Form of Application that does not comply with the deadline inviting applications to allow enough Submission: Requirements concerning requirements. time to complete the grant process if the content of an application, together Individuals with disabilities who Congress appropriates funds for this with the forms you must submit, are in need an accommodation or auxiliary aid program. the application package for this in connection with the application Estimated Range of Awards: $35,000– competition. Word Limit and process should contact the person listed $108,000 for the first year only. Application Format: The application under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Estimated Average Size of Awards: narrative is where you, the applicant, CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If $35,000 for the first year of two-year address the selection criteria that the Department provides an Policy Oriented Measures grants that reviewers use to evaluate your accommodation or auxiliary aid to an support public policy research on application. You must limit the individual with a disability in transatlantic topics; $45,000 for the first application narrative to no more than connection with the application year of four-year Mobility grants that 6,000 words. The page format for the process, the individual’s application support curriculum development and application must comply with the remains subject to all other academic term exchanges; and $102,000 following standards: requirements and limitations in this for the first year of five-year • Double space (no more than three notice. Transatlantic Degree grants that support lines per vertical inch) all text in the Deadline for Intergovernmental the development and implementation of application narrative, including titles, Review: June 10, 2010. dual degrees. You can find a detailed headings, footnotes, quotations, 4. Intergovernmental Review: This description of each of these three types references, and captions, as well as all program is subject to Executive Order of grants in the program guidelines and text in charts, tables, figures, and 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR budget instructions in the application graphs. part 79. Information about package for this competition. • Use a font that is either 12 point or Intergovernmental Review of Federal Estimated Number of Awards: 25. larger or no smaller than 10 pitch Programs under Executive Order 12372 (characters per inch). is in the application package for this Note: The Department is not bound by any • Use one of the following fonts: program. estimates in this notice. Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 5. Funding Restrictions: We reference Project Period: Up to 60 months. New, or Arial. An application submitted regulations outlining funding

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

restrictions in the Applicable submission requirement, as described (b) E-Application is unavailable for Regulations section of this notice. elsewhere in this section, and submit any period of time between 3:30 p.m. 6. Other Submission Requirements: your application in paper format. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Applications for grants under this • You must submit all documents on the application deadline date. program must be submitted electronically, including all information We must acknowledge and confirm electronically unless you qualify for an you typically provide on the following these periods of unavailability before exception to this requirement in forms: The Application for Federal granting you an extension. To request accordance with the instructions in this Assistance (SF 424), the Department of this extension or to confirm our section. Education Supplemental Information for acknowledgment of any system a. Electronic Submission of SF 424, Budget Information—Non- unavailability, you may contact either Applications. Applications for grants Construction Programs (ED 524), and all (1) the person listed elsewhere in this under the EU-U.S. Atlantis Program— necessary assurances and certifications. notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CFDA Number 84.116J must be You must attach any narrative sections CONTACT (see VII. Agency Contact) or (2) submitted electronically using e- of your application as files in a .DOC the e-Grants help desk at 1–888–336– Application, accessible through the (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF 8930. If e-Application is unavailable Department’s e-Grants Web site at: (Portable Document) format. If you due to technical problems with the http://e-grants.ed.gov. upload a file type other than the three system and, therefore, the application We will reject your application if you file types specified in this paragraph or deadline is extended, an e-mail will be submit it in paper format unless, as submit a password protected file, we sent to all registered users who have described elsewhere in this section, you will not review that material. initiated an e-Application. Extensions qualify for one of the exceptions to the • Your electronic application must referred to in this section apply only to electronic submission requirement and comply with the word limit requirement the unavailability of e-Application. submit, no later than two weeks before described in this notice. Exception to Electronic Submission the application deadline date, a written • Prior to submitting your electronic Requirement: You qualify for an statement to the Department that you application, you may wish to print a exception to the electronic submission qualify for one of these exceptions. copy of it for your records. requirement, and may submit your Further information regarding • After you electronically submit application in paper format, if you are calculation of the date that is two weeks your application, you will receive an unable to submit an application through before the application deadline date is automatic acknowledgment that will e-Application because— provided later in this section under include a PR/Award number (an • You do not have access to the Exception to Electronic Submission identifying number unique to your Internet; or Requirement. application). • You do not have the capacity to While completing your electronic • Within three working days after upload large documents to application, you will be entering data submitting your electronic application, e-Application; and online that will be saved into a fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the • No later than two weeks before the database. You may not e-mail an Application Control Center after application deadline date (14 calendar electronic copy of a grant application to following these steps: days or, if the fourteenth calendar day us. (1) Print SF 424 from e-Application. before the application deadline date Please note the following: (2) The applicant’s Authorizing falls on a Federal holiday, the next • You must complete the electronic Representative must sign this form. business day following the Federal submission of your grant application by (3) Place the PR/Award number in the holiday), you mail or fax a written 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on upper right hand corner of the hard- statement to the Department, explaining the application deadline date. E- copy signature page of the SF 424. which of the two grounds for an Application will not accept an (4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the exception prevents you from using the application for this competition after Application Control Center at (202) Internet to submit your application. If 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on 245–6272. you mail your written statement to the the application deadline date. • We may request that you provide us Department, it must be postmarked no Therefore, we strongly recommend that original signatures on other forms at a later than two weeks before the you do not wait until the application later date. application deadline date. If you fax deadline date to begin the application Application Deadline Date Extension your written statement to the process. in Case of e-Application Unavailability: Department, we must receive the faxed • The hours of operation of the If you are prevented from electronically statement no later than two weeks e-Grants Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday submitting your application on the before the application deadline date. until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 application deadline date because Address and mail or fax your a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, e-Application is unavailable, we will statement to: Frank Frankfort, U.S. Washington, DC time. Please note that, grant you an extension of one business Department of Education, 1990 K Street, because of maintenance, the system is day to enable you to transmit your NW., room 6152, Washington, DC unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on application electronically, by mail, or by 20006–8544. FAX: (202) 502–7877. Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and hand delivery. We will grant this Your paper application must be between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and extension if— submitted in accordance with the mail 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, (1) You are a registered user of e- or hand delivery instructions described DC time. Any modifications to these Application and you have initiated an in this notice. hours are posted on the e-Grants Web electronic application for this b. Submission of Paper Applications site. competition; and by Mail. • You will not receive additional (2)(a) E-Application is unavailable for If you qualify for an exception to the point value because you submit your 60 minutes or more between the hours electronic submission requirement, you application in electronic format, nor of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, may mail (through the U.S. Postal will we penalize you if you qualify for DC time, on the application deadline Service or a commercial carrier) your an exception to the electronic date; or application to the Department. You

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1047

must mail the original and two copies of your grant application. If you do not (2) The manner in which projects are of your application, on or before the receive this grant notification within 15 being institutionalized and continued application deadline date, to the business days from the application after funding. Department at the following address: deadline date, you should call the U.S. If funded, you will be asked to collect U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Application and report data from your project on Application Control Center, Attention: Control Center at (202) 245–6288. steps taken toward achieving the (CFDA Number 84.116J), LBJ Basement V. Application Review Information outcomes evaluated by these Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., performance measures (i.e., Washington, DC 20202–4260. 1. Selection Criteria: The selection institutionalization and replication). You must show proof of mailing criteria for this program are from 34 CFR Consequently, applicants are advised to consisting of one of the following: 75.210 and are listed in the application include these two outcomes in (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service package. conceptualizing the design, 2. Review and Selection Process: An postmark. implementation, and evaluation of their additional factor we consider in (2) A legible mail receipt with the proposed projects. Institutionalization selecting an application for an award is date of mailing stamped by the U.S. and replication are important outcomes demonstration of a transatlantic, Postal Service. that ensure the ultimate success of innovative approach to training and (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or international consortia funded through education. receipt from a commercial carrier. this program. (4) Any other proof of mailing VI. Award Administration Information acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. VII. Agency Contact 1. Award Notices: If your application Department of Education. For Further Information Contact: If you mail your application through is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and Frank Frankfort, Fund for the the U.S. Postal Service, we do not Improvement of Postsecondary accept either of the following as proof send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, Education, EU–U.S. Atlantis Program, of mailing: U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K (1) A private metered postmark. also. Street, NW., room 6154, Washington, (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by If your application is not evaluated or DC 20006–8544. Telephone: (202) 502– the U.S. Postal Service. not selected for funding, we notify you. 7513 or by e-mail: If your application is postmarked after 2. Administrative and National Policy [email protected]. the application deadline date, we will Requirements: We identify not consider your application. administrative and national policy If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll requirements in the application package free, at 1–800–877–8339. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not and reference these and other uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before requirements in the Applicable VIII. Other Information relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. Regulations section of this notice. Accessible Format: Individuals with We reference the regulations outlining disabilities can obtain this document c. Submission of Paper Applications the terms and conditions of an award in and a copy of the application package in by Hand Delivery. the Applicable Regulations section of an accessible format (e.g., braille, large If you qualify for an exception to the this notice and include these and other print, audiotape, or computer diskette) electronic submission requirement, you specific conditions in the GAN. The on request to the program contact (or a courier service) may deliver your GAN also incorporates your approved person listed under FOR FURTHER paper application to the Department by application as part of your binding INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of hand. You must deliver the original and commitments under the grant. this notice. two copies of your application by hand, 3. Reporting: At the end of your on or before the application deadline project period, you must submit a final Electronic Access to This Document: date, to the Department at the following performance report, including financial You can view this document, as well as address: U.S. Department of Education, information, as directed by the all other documents of this Department Application Control Center, Attention: Secretary. If you receive a multi-year published in the Federal Register, in (CFDA Number 84.116J), 550 12th award, you must submit an annual text or Adobe Portable Document Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center performance report that provides the Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. most current performance and financial following site: www.ed.gov/news/ The Application Control Center expenditure information as directed by fedregister. To use PDF you must have accepts hand deliveries daily between the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, Secretary may also require more available free at this site. DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, frequent performance reports under 34 Note: The official version of this document and Federal holidays. CFR 75.720(c). For specific is the document published in the Federal Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of requirements on reporting, please go to Register. Free Internet access to the official Paper Applications: If you mail or hand http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/ edition of the Federal Register and the Code deliver your application to the of Federal Regulations is available on GPO appforms/appforms.html. Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ Department— 4. Performance Measures: Under the index.html. (1) You must indicate on the envelope Government Performance and Results and—if not provided by the Act of 1993 (GPRA), the following two Delegation of Authority: The Secretary Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 performance measures will be used by of Education has delegated authority to the CFDA number, including suffix the Department in assessing the success Daniel T. Madzelan, Director, letter, if any, of the competition under of the FIPSE—Special Focus Forecasting and Policy Analysis for the which you are submitting your Competition: EU-U.S. Atlantis Program: Office of Postsecondary Education, to application; and (1) The extent to which funded perform the functions and duties of the (2) The Application Control Center projects are being replicated (i.e., Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary will mail to you a notification of receipt adopted or adapted by others). Education.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Dated: January 5, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For each hearing, DOE and Ecology will Daniel T. Madzelan, information regarding the Hanford Site make short opening presentations on the Director, Forecasting and Policy Analysis. or this Draft EIS, contact Ms. Burandt at Draft EIS and describe the format for the [FR Doc. 2010–137 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] the above address. The following Web hearing. The remaining time will be BILLING CODE 4000–01–P sites may also be accessed for additional available for the public to comment. The information on the Hanford Site: http:// schedule of locations, dates, and times www.hanford.gov/orp/ (Click on Public for all of the public hearings is provided DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Involvement) or http:// as follows: www.hanford.gov. Notice of Public Hearings on the Draft General information on DOE’s NEPA Richland, WA 99352, January 26, 2010, Tank Closure and Waste Management process is on the Department’s NEPA Red Lion Hotel Hanford House, 802 Environmental Impact Statement for Web site at http://www.gc.energy.gov/ George Washington Way, 509–946– the Hanford Site, Richland, WA nepa or contact: Carol Borgstrom, 7611, 6 to 10 p.m. Director, Office of NEPA Policy and AGENCY: Boise, ID 83702, February 2, 2010, Department of Energy. Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department Owyhee Plaza Hotel, 1109 Main St., ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings. of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 208–343–4611, 6 to 10 p.m. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy SW., Washington, DC 20585, e-mail (DOE) announces the public hearings on [email protected], telephone 202– Hood River, OR 97031, February 9, the Draft Tank Closure and Waste 586–4600; or leave a message at 800– 2010, Columbia Gorge Hotel, 4000 Management Environmental Impact 472–2756. Westcliff Drive, 541–386–5566, 6 to Statement for the Hanford Site, For general questions and information 10 p.m. about the Washington State Department Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS–0391) Portland, OR 97232, February 10, 2010, (Draft TC&WM EIS or Draft EIS). This of Ecology, contact: Annette Carlson, Doubletree Hotel, Portland—Lloyd Draft EIS was prepared in accordance Nuclear Waste Program, 3100 Port of Center, 1000 NE Multnomah Street, with the implementing regulations Benton Blvd., Richland, WA 99352, under the National Environmental telephone 509–372–7897, e-mail 503–281–6111, 6 to 10 p.m. Policy Act (NEPA). A Notice of [email protected]. Seattle, WA, February 11, 2010, Seattle Availability of the Draft EIS was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Center, 305 Harrison Street, 206–684– published on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 7200, 6 to 10 p.m. 56194), initiating a 140-day public I. Background comment period ending March 19, 2010. The Hanford Site is located in DOE will consider and respond to all The State of Washington, Department of southeastern Washington State along the oral and written comments received at Ecology (Ecology) is a cooperating Columbia River, and is approximately the public hearings or written comments agency on this EIS. 586 square miles in size. Hanford’s postmarked by March 19, 2010, in DATES: During the public comment mission included defense-related preparing the Final EIS. Late comments period for the Draft TC & WM EIS which nuclear research, development, and will be considered to the extent ends March 19, 2010, DOE invites the weapons production activities from the practicable. DOE is considering some public to submit written comments by early 1940s to approximately 1989. additional public hearings. Times and any of the means listed under During that period, Hanford operated a locations for those additional hearings ADDRESSES below. In addition, oral as plutonium production complex with will be announced in the Federal well as written comments may be nine nuclear reactors and associated Register and local media. provided at the public hearings to be processing facilities. These activities held as listed under SUPPLEMENTARY created a wide variety of chemical and III. Next Steps INFORMATION. radioactive wastes. Hanford’s mission DOE intends to issue the Final Tank ADDRESSES: Written comments may be now is focused on the cleanup of those Closure and Waste Management EIS by submitted by regular mail, fax, or e-mail wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. March 2011. DOE will issue a Record of as follows. Written comments may be In support of Hanford’s cleanup Decision no sooner than 30 days after mission DOE, with Ecology as a sent to: Mary Beth Burandt, Office of the Environmental Protection Agency cooperating agency, prepared the Draft River Protection, Document Manager, publishes a Notice of Availability of the TC & WM EIS in accordance with the P.O. Box 1178, Richland, Washington Final EIS in the Federal Register. 99352, Attention: TC & WM EIS. Council on Environmental Quality’s Written comments or requests for National Environmental Policy Act Signed in Washington, DC, January 5, information can be submitted at (NEPA) Implementing Regulations at 40 2010. [email protected], or by faxing to CFR Parts 1500–1508 and the DOE William M. Levitan, 888–785–2865. The Draft EIS is NEPA Implementing Procedures at 10 Director, Office of Environmental available on DOE’s NEPA Web site at CFR Part 1021. The Environmental Compliance, Office of Environmental http://www.gc.energy.gov/nepa and the Protection Agency issued a Notice of Management. Hanford Web site at http:// Availability of this Draft TC & WM EIS [FR Doc. 2010–224 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] www.hanford.gov. on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56194), BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Copies of this Draft EIS are available thereby initiating the public comment for review at: Hanford Site Public period for the Draft EIS. Reading Room, 2770 University Drive, CIC. Room 101L, Richland, WA 99354, II. Public Hearings 509–372–7443 and the U.S. Department During an open house, the first hour of Energy, FOIA Reading Room, 1G–033, of each hearing, participants may Forrestal Bldg., 1000 Independence Ave, register to speak and meet informally SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202–586– with representatives from DOE and 5955. Ecology. During the formal portion of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1049

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– paragraph h. In addition, all comments 3372. (original and eight copies) must be filed Federal Energy Regulatory with the Commission at the following Kimberly D. Bose, Commission address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [FR Doc. 2010–57 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] [Project No. 2533–046] 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 20426. All filings with the Commission Wausau Paper Printing & Writing, LLC, must include on the first page, the project name (Admiralty Inlet Pilot DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Wausau Paper Mills, LLC; Notice of Tidal Project) and number (P–12690– 003), and bear the heading ‘‘Comments Application for Transfer of License and Federal Energy Regulatory Soliciting Comments and Motions To on the proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Commission ’’ Intervene Tidal Project. Any individual or entity [Project No. 12690–003] interested in submitting comments on December 30, 2009. the pre-filing materials must do so by Public Utility District No. 1 of February 26, 2010. On December 10, 2009, Wausau Paper Snohomish County, WA; Notice of Comments may be filed electronically Printing & Writing, LLC (transferor) and Intent To File License Application, via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Wausau Paper Mills, LLC (transferee) Filing of Draft Application, Request for Commission strongly encourages filed an application for transfer of Waivers of Integrated Licensing electronic filings. See 18 CFR license of the Brainerd Hydroelectric Process Regulations Necessary for 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions Project located on the Mississippi River, Expedited Processing of a on the Commission’s Web site (http:// in Crow Wing County, Minnesota. Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘e-filing’’ link. The transferor and transferee seek Application, and Soliciting Comments l. Snohomish PUD was designated as Commission approval to transfer the the non-federal representative for December 30, 2009. section 7 of the Endangered Species Act license for the Brainerd Hydroelectric a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to consultation and for section 106 Project from the transferor to the File a License Application for an consultation under the National Historic transferee. Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Preservation Act on November 7, 2008. Applicant Contacts: For Transferor Project. m. This notice does not constitute the and Transferee: Ms. Cara Kurtenback, b. Project No.: 12690–003. Commission’s approval of Snohomish Director of Environmental Affairs, c. Date Filed: December 28, 2009. PUD’s request to use the Pilot Project Wausau Paper Corp., 100 Paper Place, d. Submitted By: Public Utility Licensing Procedures. Upon its review Mosinee, WI 54455, (715) 692–2023, e- District No. 1 of Snohomish County, of the project’s overall characteristics mail: [email protected] Washington (Snohomish PUD) relative to the pilot project criteria, the and Ms. Elizabeth W. Whittle, Nixon e. Name of Project: Admiralty Inlet draft license application contents, and Pilot Tidal Project. Peabody, LLP, 401 Ninth Street, NW., any comments filed, the Commission f. Location: On the east side of Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004, (202) will determine whether there is Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound, 585–8338, e-mail: adequate information to conclude the Washington, about 1 kilometer west of [email protected]. pre-filing process. Whidbey Island, entirely within Island n. The proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) County, Washington. The project would Tidal Project would consist of (1) two 502–8735. not occupy any Federal lands. 10-meter, 500-kilowatt (kW) Open- Deadline for filing comments and g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 and Centre Turbines supplied by motions to intervene: 15 days from the 5.5 of the Commission’s regulations. OpenHydro Group Ltd., mounted on issuance of this notice. Comments and h. Applicant Contact: Steven J. Klein, completely submerged gravity motions to intervene may be filed Public Utility District of Snohomish foundations; (2) two 250-meter service electronically via the Internet. See 18 County, Washington, P.O. Box 1107, cables connected at a subsea junction CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the 2320, California Street, Everett, WA box or spliced to a 0.5-kilometer subsea instructions on the Commission’s Web 98206–1107; (425) 783–8473. transmission cable, connecting to a i. FERC Contact: David Turner (202) site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable cable termination vault about 50 meters 502–6091. to be filed electronically, documents from shore; (3) two 81-meter-long buried j. Snohomish PUD has filed with the conduits containing the two DC may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) transmission lines from the turbines and original and eight copies should be to file an application for an original connecting to a power conditioning and mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, license for a hydrokinetic pilot project control building; (4) a 140-meter-long Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and a draft license application with buried cable from the control building 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC monitoring plans; (2) a request for to the grid; and (5) appurtenant facilities 20426. For more information on how to waivers of the integrated licensing for operation and maintenance. The submit these types of filings please go process regulations necessary for estimated annual generation of the to the Commission’s Web site located at expedited processing of a hydrokinetic project is 383,000 kilowatt-hours. http://www.ferc.gov/filing- pilot project license application; and (3) o. A copy of the draft license comments.asp. More information about a proposed process plan and schedule. application and all pre-filing materials this project can be viewed or printed on k. With this notice, we are soliciting are available for review at the the eLibrary link of Commission’s Web comments on the pre-filing materials Commission in the Public Reference site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ listed in paragraph j above, including Room or may be viewed on the elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number the draft license application and Commission’s Web site (http:// (P–2533–046) in the docket number monitoring plans. All comments should www.ferc.gov), using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. field to access the document. For be sent to the address above in Enter the docket number, excluding the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

last three digits in the docket number Alabama Power Company has requested Regulatory Commission by Delegation field to access the document. For that Project Nos. 2146, 82, and 618 be Order No. 00–037.00, submitted Rate assistance, contact FERC Online consolidated into one project. We are Schedule L–F9 for confirmation and Support at processing these three projects under approval on a final basis effective [email protected] or toll Project No. 2146–111. This final January 1, 2010, and ending December free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, environmental assessment (EA) is a 31, 2014. (202) 502–8659. cooperative undertaking between the Any person desiring to intervene or to p. Pre-filing process schedule. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the protest this filing must file in pre-filing process will be conducted Commission. accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of pursuant to the following tentative The Coosa River Project is located on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and schedule. Snohomish PUD plans to the Coosa River, in the States of Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). complete studies in 2010 to provide Alabama and Georgia. The Logan Martin Protests will be considered by the further support for the environmental development affects less than 1 acre of Commission in determining the analysis. Revisions to the schedule Federal lands, the Lay development appropriate action to be taken, but will below may be made based on staff’s affects 133.5 acres of Federal lands, the not serve to make protestants parties to review of the draft application and any Mitchell Project affects 127.3 acres of the proceeding. Any person wishing to comments received. Federal lands, and the Jordan Project become a party must file a notice of affects 10.1 acres of Federal lands. Staff intervention or motion to intervene, as Milestone Date has prepared a final EA for the project. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Comments on pre-fil- February 26, 2010. The final EA contains staff’s analysis protests must be filed on or before the ing materials due. of the potential environmental effects of comment date. On or before the Issuance of meeting March 15, 2010. the project and concludes that licensing comment date, it is not necessary to notice (if needed). the project, with appropriate serve motions to intervene or protests Public meeting/tech- April 14, 2010. environmental protective measures, on persons other than the Applicant. nical conference (if would not constitute a major Federal The Commission encourages needed). action that would significantly affect the electronic submission of protests and Issuance of notice March 28, 2010 (if quality of the human environment. interventions in lieu of paper using the concluding pre-fil- no meeting is A copy of the final EA is available for ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. ing process and needed). April 29, ILP waiver request 2010 (if meeting review at the Commission in the Public Persons unable to file electronically determination. is needed). Reference Room or may be viewed on should submit an original and 14 copies the Commission’s Web site at http:// of the protest or intervention to the q. Register online at http://ferc.gov/ www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, esubscribenow.htm to be notified via e- Enter the docket number excluding the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC mail of new filing and issuances related last three digits in the docket number 20426. to this or other pending projects. For field to access the document. For This filing is accessible on-line at assistance, contact FERC Online assistance, contact FERC Online http://www.ferc.gov, using the Support. Support at ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for [email protected] or toll- review in the Commission’s Public Kimberly D. Bose, free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, Reference Room in Washington, DC. Secretary. (202) 502–8659. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the [FR Doc. 2010–64 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] For further information, please Web site that enables subscribers to BILLING CODE 6717–01–P contact Janet Hutzel at (202) 502–8675 receive e-mail notification when a or at [email protected]. document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Kimberly D. Bose, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Online service, please e-mail Secretary. [email protected], or call Federal Energy Regulatory [FR Doc. 2010–65 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Commission (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call BILLING CODE 6717–01–P (202) 502–8659. [Project No. 2146–111] Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on January 15, 2010. Alabama Power Company; Notice of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Availability of Final Environmental Kimberly D. Bose, Assessment Federal Energy Regulatory Secretary. Commission [FR Doc. 2010–58 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] December 31, 2009. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P In accordance with the National [Docket No. EF10–1–000] Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Western Area Power Administration; the Federal Energy Regulatory Notice of Filing DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission’s (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. December 30, 2009. Federal Energy Regulatory 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Take notice that on December 16, Commission Projects has reviewed the application 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the [Docket No. EF10–2–000] for a new major license for the Coosa Department of Energy submitted Rate River Hydroelectric Project (Coosa River Order No. WAPA–146, confirmed and Western Area Power Administration; Project), which includes the Weiss, H. approved on an interim basis, effective Notice of Filing Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, and on January 1, 2010, Rate Schedule L–F9 Bouldin developments; the Mitchell for firm electric service from the December 30, 2009. Hydroelectric Project (P–82); and the Loveland Area Projects, and under the Take notice that on December 16, Jordan Hydroelectric Project (P–618). authority vested in the Federal Energy 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1051

Department of Energy submitted Rate DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Order No. WAPA–147, confirmed and on January 22, 2010. approved on an interim basis, effective Federal Energy Regulatory Kimberly D. Bose, on January 1, 2010, Rate Schedule P– Commission Secretary. SED–F11 for firm power service from [Docket No. EL10–27–000] the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin [FR Doc. 2010–61 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Program—Eastern Division (PSMBP— Christian County Generation, LLC; BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ED) and Rate Schedule P–SED–FP–11 Notice of Filing for firm peaking power from the P– December 30, 2009. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SMBP—ED, and under the authority Take notice that on December 23, vested in the Federal Energy Regulatory 2009, Christian County Generation, LLC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Delegation Order No. pursuant to section 207 of the Federal Commission 00–037.00, submitted Rate Schedules P– Energy Regulatory Commission’s SED–F11 and P–SED–FP11 for (Commission) Rules of Practice and [Docket No. CP10–17–000] confirmation and approval on a final Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2009), filed basis effective January 1, 2010, and a petition for declaratory order Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line ending December 31, 2014. requesting the Commission to confirm Company, LLC; Notice of Filing Any person desiring to intervene or to the reasonableness of their proposed December 31, 2009. protest this filing must file in 11.5 percent return on equity and Take notice that on November 12, accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of hypothetical capital structure of 55 2009, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line the Commission’s Rules of Practice and percent debt and 45 percent equity in Company, LLC (Transco), tendered for Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). connection with a levelized or deferred filing an application for an order Protests will be considered by the capital recovery method under formula rates to be filed at a later date for power permitting and approving the partial Commission in determining the abandonment of firm transportation appropriate action to be taken, but will sales from their proposed new Taylorville Energy Center. service provided to the City of Danville, not serve to make protestants parties to Virginia under Transco’s Rate Schedule the proceeding. Any person wishing to Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in FT. become a party must file a notice of Any person desiring to intervene or to intervention or motion to intervene, as accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and protest this filing must file in appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of protests must be filed on or before the Protests will be considered by the the Commission’s Rules of Practice and comment date. On or before the Commission in determining the Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). comment date, it is not necessary to appropriate action to be taken, but will Protests will be considered by the serve motions to intervene or protests not serve to make protestants parties to Commission in determining the on persons other than the Applicant. the proceeding. Any person wishing to appropriate action to be taken, but will The Commission encourages become a party must file a notice of not serve to make protestants parties to electronic submission of protests and intervention or motion to intervene, as the proceeding. Any person wishing to interventions in lieu of paper using the appropriate. Such notices, motions, or become a party must file a notice of ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. protests must be filed on or before the intervention or motion to intervene, as Persons unable to file electronically comment date. On or before the appropriate. Such notices, motions, or should submit an original and 14 copies comment date, it is not necessary to protests must be filed on or before the of the protest or intervention to the serve motions to intervene or protests comment date. On or before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, on persons other than the Applicant. comment date, it is not necessary to 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC The Commission encourages serve motions to intervene or protests 20426. electronic submission of protests and on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages This filing is accessible on-line at interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘ ’’ electronic submission of protests and http://www.ferc.gov, using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Persons unable to file electronically ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. review in the Commission’s Public should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Persons unable to file electronically Reference Room in Washington, DC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, should submit an original and 14 copies There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC of the protest or intervention to the Web site that enables subscribers to 20426. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, receive e-mail notification when a This filing is accessible on-line at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC document is added to a subscribed http://www.ferc.gov, using the 20426. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for This filing is accessible on-line at Online service, please e-mail review in the Commission’s Public http://www.ferc.gov, using the [email protected], or call Reference Room in Washington, DC. ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the review in the Commission’s Public (202) 502–8659. Web site that enables subscribers to Reference Room in Washington, DC. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time receive e-mail notification when a There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the on January 15, 2010. document is added to a subscribed Web site that enables subscribers to docket(s). For assistance with any FERC receive e-mail notification when a Kimberly D. Bose, Online service, please e-mail document is added to a subscribed Secretary. [email protected], or call docket(s). For assistance with any FERC [FR Doc. 2010–59 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Online service, please e-mail BILLING CODE 6717–01–P (202) 502–8659. [email protected], or call

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call review in the Commission’s Public appropriate. Such notices, motions, or (202) 502–8659. Reference Room in Washington, DC. protests must be filed on or before the Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the comment date. On or before the on January 8, 2010. Web site that enables subscribers to comment date, it is not necessary to receive e-mail notification when a serve motions to intervene or protests Kimberly D. Bose, document is added to a subscribed on persons other than the Applicant. Secretary. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC The Commission encourages [FR Doc. 2010–66 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Online service, please e-mail electronic submission of protests and BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [email protected], or call interventions in lieu of paper using the (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. (202) 502–8659. Persons unable to file electronically DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time should submit an original and 14 copies Federal Energy Regulatory on January 25, 2010. of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commission Kimberly D. Bose, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC [Docket No. EL10–29–000] Secretary. 20426. [FR Doc. 2010–62 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] This filing is accessible on-line at Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC; TGP Dixie BILLING CODE 6717–01–P http://www.ferc.gov, using the Development Company, LLC; New ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for York Canyon, LLC; Notice of Filing review in the Commission’s Public DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY December 30, 2009. Reference Room in Washington, DC. ‘‘ ’’ Take notice that on December 24, Federal Energy Regulatory There is an eSubscription link on the 2009, Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, TGP Commission Web site that enables subscribers to Dixie Development Company, LLC and receive e-mail notification when a [Docket No. EF10–3–000] New York Canyon, LLC (‘‘Petitioners’’), document is added to a subscribed pursuant to section 207 of the Federal docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Western Area Power Administration; Online service, please e-mail Energy Regulatory Commission’s Rules Notice of Filing of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR [email protected], or call 385.207 (2009), filed a petition for December 30, 2009. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call declaratory order requesting that the Take notice that on December 23, (202) 502–8659. Commission confirm Petitioners firm 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time transmission rights to 360 MW of Department of Energy submitted Rate on January 22, 2010. capacity in the Dixie Valley 212-mile Order Nos. WAPA–144 and WAPA–148, Kimberly D. Bose, long 230 kV radial generator tie-line to confirmed and approved on an interim Secretary. interconnect Petitioners’ existing and basis, effective on January 1, 2010, Rate [FR Doc. 2010–60 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Schedules UGP–NT1, UGP–FPT1, UGP– planned geothermal projects to the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P integrated transmission system. NFPT1, UGP–AS1, UGP–AS2, UGP– Any person desiring to intervene or to AS3, UGP–AS4, UGP–AS5, UGP–AS6, protest this filing must file in and UGP–AS7 for transmission and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of ancillary services from the Pick-Sloan the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Federal Energy Regulatory Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Division and Rate Schedule UGP–TSP1 Commission Protests will be considered by the for Transmission Service Penalty Rate [ Docket No. ER10–385–000] Commission in determining the for Unreserved Use for the Pick-Sloan appropriate action to be taken, but will Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Castle Energy Services, LLC; not serve to make protestants parties to Division, and under the authority vested Supplemental Notice That Initial the proceeding. Any person wishing to in the Federal Energy Regulatory Market-Based Rate Filing Includes become a party must file a notice of Commission by Delegation Order No. Request for Blanket Section 204 intervention or motion to intervene, as 00–037.00, submitted Rate Schedules Authorization appropriate. Such notices, motions, or UGP–NT1, UGP–FPT1, UGP–NFPT1, protests must be filed on or before the UGP–AS1, UGP–AS2, UGP–AS3, UGP– December 30, 2009. comment date. On or before the AS4, UGP–AS5, UGP–AS6, UGP–AS7, This is a supplemental notice in the comment date, it is not necessary to and UGP–TSP1 for confirmation and above-referenced proceeding of Castle serve motions to intervene or protests approval on a final basis effective Energy Services LLC’s application for on persons other than the Applicant. January 1, 2010, and ending December market-based rate authority, with an The Commission encourages 31, 2014. accompanying rate tariff, noting that electronic submission of protests and Any person desiring to intervene or to such application includes a request for interventions in lieu of paper using the protest this filing must file in blanket authorization, under 18 CFR ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Part 34, of future issuances of securities Persons unable to file electronically the Commission’s Rules of Practice and and assumptions of liability. should submit an original and 14 copies Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Any person desiring to intervene or to of the protest or intervention to the Protests will be considered by the protest should file with the Federal Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commission in determining the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC appropriate action to be taken, but will First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 20426. not serve to make protestants parties to in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 This filing is accessible on-line at the proceeding. Any person wishing to of the Commission’s Rules of Practice http://www.ferc.gov, using the become a party must file a notice of and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for intervention or motion to intervene, as 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1053

intervene or protest must serve a copy authority of all sections of the Resource Confidential Business Information of that document on the Applicant. Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Security Manual.’’ Notice is hereby given that the of 1976, as amended. EPA has issued EPA is issuing this notice to inform deadline for filing protests with regard regulations that outline business all submitters of information under all to the applicant’s request for blanket confidentiality provisions for the sections of RCRA that EPA will provide authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of Agency and require all EPA Offices that Industrial Economics, Incorporated future issuances of securities and receive information designated by the access to the CBI records located in the assumptions of liability, is January 19, submitter as CBI to abide by these RCRA Confidential Business 2010. provisions. Information Center. Access to RCRA CBI The Commission encourages DATES: Access to confidential data under this contract will take place at electronic submission of protests and submitted to EPA will occur no sooner EPA Headquarters only. Contractor interventions in lieu of paper, using the than January 19, 2010. personnel will be required to sign non- FERC Online links at http:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: disclosure agreements and will be www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic LaShan Haynes, Document Control briefed on appropriate security service, persons with Internet access Officer, Office of Resource Conservation procedures before they are permitted who will eFile a document and/or be and Recovery, (5305P), U.S. access to confidential information. listed as a contact for an intervenor Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Dated: December 14, 2009. must create and validate an Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Matthew Hale, eRegistration account using the Washington, DC 20460, 703–605–0516. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Director, Office of Resource Conservation & SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recovery. link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. 1. Access to Confidential Business [FR Doc. 2010–152 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Persons unable to file electronically Information BILLING CODE 6560–50–P should submit an original and 14 copies Under EPA Contracts No. EP–W–6– of the intervention or protest to the 065 and EP07H000213, Industrial ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Economics, Incorporated (IEc) will AGENCY 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC assist the Office of Enforcement and 20426. Compliance Assurance, Office of Civil [EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0417; FRL–9101–4] The filings in the above-referenced Enforcement, Special Litigation and proceeding are accessible in the Agency Information Collection Projects Division with economic Commission’s eLibrary system by Activities; Submission to OMB for analysis training and expert testimony clicking on the appropriate link in the Review and Approval; Comment in support of EPA’s enforcement above list. They are also available for Request; NSPS for Surface Coating of actions. OECA is involved directly and review in the Commission’s Public Plastic Parts for Business Machines, indirectly in bringing enforcement Reference Room in Washington, DC. EPA ICR Number 1093.09, OMB actions against violators of There is an eSubscription link on the Control Number 2060–0162 environmental regulations. These cases Web site that enables subscribers to typically, involve one or more of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection receive e-mail notification when a following statutes: CAA, CWA, RCRA, Agency (EPA). document is added to a subscribed TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA and the SDWA. ACTION: Notice. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Some of the data collected from Online service, please e-mail industry are claimed by industry to SUMMARY: In compliance with the [email protected]. or call contain trade secrets or CBI. In Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call accordance with the provisions of 40 3501 et seq.), this document announces (202) 502–8659. CFR part 2, subpart B, ORCR has that an Information Collection Request Kimberly D. Bose, established policies and procedures for (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office Secretary. handling information collected from of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request [FR Doc. 2010–63 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] industry, under the authority of RCRA, to renew an existing approved BILLING CODE 6717–01–P including RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manuals. collection. The ICR which is abstracted Industrial Economics, Incorporated below describes the nature of the (IEc), shall protect from unauthorized collection and the estimated burden and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION cost. AGENCY disclosure all information designated as confidential and shall abide by all DATES: Additional comments may be [FRL–9101–5] RCRA CBI requirements, including submitted on or before February 8, 2010. procedures outlined in the RCRA CBI ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Access to Confidential Business Security Manual. The U.S. referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– Information by Industrial Economics, Environmental Protection Agency has OECA–2009–0417, to (1) EPA online Incorporated issued regulations (40 CFR part 2, using www.regulations.gov (our AGENCY: Environmental Protection subpart B) that outline business preferred method), or by e-mail to Agency (EPA). confidentiality provisions for the [email protected], or by mail to: EPA ACTION: Notice of Access to Data and Agency and require all EPA Offices that Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Request for Comments. receive information designated by the Protection Agency, Enforcement and submitter as CBI to abide by these Compliance Docket and Information SUMMARY: EPA will authorize its provisions. Industrial Economics, Center, mail code 2801T, 1200 contractor, Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) will be authorized to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Incorporated (IEc) to access Confidential have access to RCRA CBI under the EPA Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Business Information (CBI) which has ‘‘Contractor Requirements for the Office of Information and Regulatory been submitted to EPA under the Control and Security of RCRA Affairs, Office of Management and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to and transmit or otherwise disclose the for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., expire on January 31, 2010. Under OMB information. Washington, DC 20503. regulations, the Agency may continue to Respondents/Affected Entities: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John conduct or sponsor the collection of Business machine manufacturers. Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning information while this submission is Estimated Number of Respondents: and Standards, Sector Policies and pending at OMB. An Agency may not 10. Programs Division (D243–05), conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Frequency of Response: Initially, Measurement Policy Group, required to respond to, a collection of quarterly, and semiannually. Environmental Protection Agency, information unless it displays a Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, currently valid OMB control number. 978. 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– The OMB control numbers for EPA’s Estimated Total Annual Cost: $92,296 0296; fax number: (919) 541–3207; e- regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after in labor costs and $0 in capital/startup mail address: [email protected]. appearing in the Federal Register when costs or operation and maintenance approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, (O&M) costs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has and displayed either by publication in Changes in the Estimates: There is a submitted the following ICR to OMB for the Federal Register or by other decrease estimated burden currently review and approval according to the appropriate means, such as on the identified in the OMB Inventory of procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. related collection instrument or form, if Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA applicable. The display of OMB control was due to a change in the adjustments sought comments on this ICR pursuant numbers in certain EPA regulations is to the estimates to correct a to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. mathematical error. comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA Abstract: The New Source Dated: December 24, 2009. and OMB within 30 days of this notice. Performance Standards (NSPS) for Richard T. Westlund, EPA has established a public docket Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Acting Director, Collection Strategies for this ICR under docket ID number Business Machines were promulgated Division. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0417, which is on January 29, 1988. These standards [FR Doc. 2010–148 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] available for public viewing online at apply to each spray booth that applies BILLING CODE 6560–50–P http://www.regulations.gov, in person prime coats, color coats, texture coats or viewing at the Enforcement and touch-up coats in industrial surface Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket coating operations that apply coatings to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room plastic parts for use in the manufacture AGENCY of business machines. 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., [EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0418; FRL–9101–3] Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Affected sources are required to Center Public Reading Room is open complete initial notifications, Agency Information Collection from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday performance tests, and periodic reports. Activities; Submission to OMB for through Friday, excluding legal Owners or operators are also required to Review and Approval; Comment holidays. The telephone number for the maintain records of the occurrence and Request; NSPS for Secondary Lead Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and duration of any startup, shutdown, or Smelters (Renewal); EPA ICR Number the telephone number for the malfunction in the operation of an 1128.09, OMB Control Number 2060– Enforcement and Compliance Docket is affected facility, or any period during 0080 (202) 566–1752. which the monitoring system is Use EPA’s electronic docket and inoperative. These notifications, reports, AGENCY: Environmental Protection comment system at http:// and records are essential in determining Agency (EPA). www.regulations.gov, to submit or view compliance; and are required, in ACTION: Notice. public comments, access the index general, of all sources subject to NSPS. SUMMARY: In compliance with the listing of the contents of the docket, and Burden Statement: The annual public Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. to access those documents in the docket reporting and recordkeeping burden for 3501 et seq.), this document announces that are available electronically. Once in this collection of information is that an Information Collection Request the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then estimated to average 35 hours per (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office key in the docket ID number identified response. Burden means the total time, of Management and Budget (OMB) for above. Please note that EPA’s policy is effort, or financial resources expended review and approval. This is a request that public comments, whether by persons to generate, maintain, retain, to renew an existing approved submitted electronically or in paper, or disclose or provide information to or collection. The ICR which is abstracted will be made available for public for a Federal agency. This includes the below describes the nature of the viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, time needed to review instructions; collection and the estimated burden and as EPA receives them and without develop, acquire, install, and utilize cost. change, unless the comment contains technology and systems for the purposes copyrighted material, confidential of collecting, validating, and verifying DATES: Additional comments may be business information (CBI), or other information, processing and submitted on or before February 8, 2010. information whose public disclosure is maintaining information, and disclosing ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, restricted by statute. For further and providing information; adjust the referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– information about the electronic docket, existing ways to comply with any OECA–2009–0418, to (1) EPA online go to www.regulations.gov. previously applicable instructions and using http://www.regulations.gov (our Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of requirements which have subsequently preferred method), or by e-mail to Plastic Parts for Business Machines changed; train personnel to be able to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number respond to a collection of information; Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 1093.09, OMB Control Number 2060– search data sources; complete and Protection Agency, Enforcement and 0162. review the collection of information; Compliance Docket and Information

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1055

Center, mail code 28221T, 1200 Title: NSPS for Secondary Lead and transmit or otherwise disclose the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Smelters (Renewal) information. Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number Respondents/Affected Entities: Office of Information and Regulatory 1128.09, OMB Control Number 2060– Secondary lead smelters. Affairs, Office of Management and 0080. Estimated Number of Respondents: Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 25. for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., expire on January 31, 2010. Under OMB Frequency of Response: Initially and Washington, DC 20503. regulations, the Agency may continue to on occasion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John conduct or sponsor the collection of Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning information while this submission is 38. and Standards, Sector Policies and pending at OMB. An Agency may not Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3,538 Programs Division (D243–05), conduct or sponsor, and a person is not in labor costs and no capital/startup Measurement Policy Group, required to respond to, a collection of costs or operation and maintenance Environmental Protection Agency, information unless it displays a (O&M) costs. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, currently valid OMB control number. Changes in the Estimates: There is no 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– The OMB control numbers for EPA’s change in the total estimated burden 0296; fax number: (919) 541–3207; e- regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after currently identified in the OMB mail address: [email protected]. appearing in the Federal Register when Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, Dated: December 24, 2009. submitted the following ICR to OMB for and displayed either by publication in Richard T. Westlund, review and approval according to the the Federal Register or by other Acting Director, Collection Strategies procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. appropriate means, such as on the Division. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA related collection instrument or form, if [FR Doc. 2010–151 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] sought comments on this ICR pursuant applicable. The display of OMB control BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no numbers in certain EPA regulations is comments. Any additional comments on consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. this ICR should be submitted to EPA Abstract: This Information Collection ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and OMB within 30 days of this notice. Request (ICR) renewal is being AGENCY submitted for the NSPS for Secondary EPA has established a public docket [EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0525; FRL–9101–2] for this ICR under docket ID number Lead Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0418, which is L), which was promulgated on March 8, Agency Information Collection available for public viewing online at 1974. This standard applies to owners Activities; Submission to OMB for http://www.regulations.gov, in person and operators of secondary lead Review and Approval; Comment viewing at the Enforcement and smelters facilities. Owners and Request; Fuels and Fuel Additives: Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket operators of secondary lead smelters Health-Effects Research Requirements Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room subject to NSPS must notify EPA of for Manufacturers (Renewal); EPA ICR 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., construction, reconstruction, No. 1696.06, OMB Control No. 2060– Washington, DC. The EPA Docket anticipated and actual startup dates, and 0297 Center Public Reading Room is open results of performance tests. Records of from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday performance test results, shutdowns, AGENCY: Environmental Protection through Friday, excluding legal and malfunctions must be maintained. Agency (EPA). holidays. The telephone number for the These notifications, reports, and records ACTION: Notice. Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and are essential in determining compliance; the telephone number for the and are required, in general, of all SUMMARY: In compliance with the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is sources subject to NSPS. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 (202) 566–1752. Burden Statement: The annual public U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document Use EPA’s electronic docket and reporting and recordkeeping burden for announces that an Information comment system at http:// this collection of information is Collection Request (ICR) has been www.regulations.gov, to submit or view estimated to average 1.5 hours per forwarded to the Office of Management public comments, access the index response. Burden means the total time, and Budget (OMB) for review and listing of the contents of the docket, and effort, or financial resources expended approval. This is a request to renew an to access those documents in the docket by persons to generate, maintain, retain, existing approved collection. The ICR, that are available electronically. Once in or disclose or provide information to or which is abstracted below, describes the the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then for a Federal agency. This includes the nature of the information collection and key in the docket ID number identified time needed to review instructions; its estimated burden and cost. above. Please note that EPA’s policy is develop, acquire, install, and utilize DATES: Additional comments may be that public comments, whether technology and systems for the purposes submitted on or before February 8, 2010. submitted electronically or in paper, of collecting, validating, and verifying ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, will be made available for public information, processing and referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, maintaining information, and disclosing OAR–2006–0525, to (1) EPA online as EPA receives them and without and providing information; adjust the using www.regulations.gov (our change, unless the comment contains existing ways to comply with any preferred method), by e-mail to a-and- copyrighted material, confidential previously applicable instructions and [email protected], or by mail to: EPA business information (CBI), or other requirements which have subsequently Docket Center, Environmental information whose public disclosure is changed; train personnel to be able to Protection Agency, Air and Radiation restricted by statute. For further respond to a collection of information; Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 information about the electronic docket, search data sources; complete and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, go to http://www.regulations.gov. review the collection of information; DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Office of Information and Regulatory ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to similar grouping requirements for diesel Affairs, Office of Management and expire on February 28, 2010. Under fuel and diesel fuel additives. Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer OMB regulations, the Agency may Manufacturers may perform the for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., continue to conduct or sponsor the research independently or may join Washington, DC 20503. collection of information while this with other manufacturers to share in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submission is pending at OMB. An costs for each applicable group. Several James W. Caldwell, Office of Agency may not conduct or sponsor, research consortiums (groups of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail and a person is not required to respond manufacturers) have been formed. The code: 6406J, Environmental Protection to, a collection of information, unless it largest consortium, organized by the Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., displays a currently valid OMB control American Petroleum Institute (API), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number. The OMB control numbers for represents most of the manufacturers of number: (202) 343–9303; fax number: EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, baseline gasoline, baseline diesel fuel, (202) 343–2802; e-mail address: after appearing in the Federal Register baseline fuel additives, and the [email protected]. when approved, are listed in 40 CFR prominent nonbaseline oxygenated Part 9, and are displayed either by additives for gasoline. The research is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has publication in the Federal Register or structured into three tiers of submitted the following ICR to OMB for by other appropriate means, such as on requirements for each group. Tier 1 review and approval according to the the related collection instrument or requires an emissions characterization procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. form, if applicable. The display of OMB and a literature search for information On September 9, 2009 (74 FR 46422), control numbers in certain EPA on the health effects of those emissions. EPA sought comments on this ICR regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Voluminous Tier 1 data for gasoline and pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA Part 9. diesel fuel were submitted by API and received no comments. Any additional others in 1997. Tier 1 data have been Abstract: In accordance with the comments on this ICR should be submitted for biodiesel, water/diesel regulations at 40 CFR part 79, subparts submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 emulsions, several atypical additives, A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and days of this notice. and renewable diesel fuels. Tier 2 Fuel Additives, manufacturers EPA has established a public docket requires short-term inhalation exposures (including importers) of motor-vehicle for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– of laboratory animals to emissions to HQ–OAR–2006–0525, which is gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and screen for adverse health effects. Tier 2 available for online viewing at http:// additives for those fuels, are required to data have been submitted for baseline www.regulations.gov, or in person have these products registered by the diesel, biodiesel, and water/diesel viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket EPA prior to their introduction into emulsions. Alternative Tier 2 testing can in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), commerce. Registration involves be required in lieu of standard Tier 2 EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 providing a chemical description of the testing if EPA concludes that such Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, fuel or additive, and certain technical, testing would be more appropriate. The DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room marketing, and health-effects EPA reached that conclusion with is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., information. The development of respect to gasoline and gasoline- Monday through Friday, excluding legal health-effects data, as required by 40 oxygenate blends, and alternative holidays. The telephone number for the CFR part 79, subpart F, is the subject of requirements were established for the Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the this ICR. The information collection API consortium for baseline gasoline telephone number for the Air and requirements for subparts A through D, and six gasoline-oxygenate blends. Radiation Docket is 202–566–1742. and the supplemental notification Alternative Tier 2 requirements have Use EPA’s electronic docket and requirements of Subpart F (indicating also been established for the manganese comment system at http:// how the manufacturer will satisfy the additive MMT manufactured by the www.regulations.gov, to submit or view health-effects data requirements) are Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly public comments, access the index covered by a separate ICR (OMB Control the Ethyl Corporation). Tier 3 provides listing of the contents of the docket, and No. 2060–0150). The health-effects data for follow-up research, at EPA’s to access those documents in the docket will be used to determine if there are discretion, when remaining that are available electronically. Once in any products that have evaporative or uncertainties as to the significance of the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then combustion emissions that may pose an observed health effects, welfare effects, key in the docket ID number identified unreasonable risk to public health, thus and/or emissions exposures from a fuel above. Please note that EPA’s policy is meriting further investigation and or fuel/additive mixture interfere with that public comments, whether potential regulation. This information is EPA’s ability to make reasonable submitted electronically or in paper, required for specific groups of fuels and estimates of the potential risks posed by will be made available for public additives as defined in the regulations. emissions from a fuel or additive. To viewing at http://www.regulations.gov For example, gasoline and gasoline date, EPA has not imposed any Tier 3 as EPA receives them and without additives which consist of only carbon, requirements. Under Section 211 of the change, unless the comment contains hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and/or Clean Air Act, (1) submission of the copyrighted material, confidential sulfur, and which involve a gasoline health-effects information is necessary business information (CBI), or other oxygen content of less than 1.5 weight for a manufacturer to obtain registration information whose public disclosure is percent, fall into a ‘‘baseline’’ group. of a motor-vehicle gasoline, diesel fuel, restricted by statute. For further Oxygenates, such as ethanol, when used or fuel additive, and thus be allowed to information about the electronic docket, in gasoline as an oxygen level of at least introduce that product into commerce, go to http://www.regulations.gov. 1.5 weight percent, define separate and (2) the information shall not be Title: Fuels and Fuel Additives: ‘‘nonbaseline’’ groups for each considered confidential. Health-Effects Research Requirements oxygenate. Additives which contain Burden Statement: The annual public for Manufacturers (Renewal). elements other than carbon, hydrogen, reporting and recordkeeping burden for ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1696.06, oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur fall into this collection of information is OMB Control No. 2060–0297. separate atypical groups. There are estimated to average 7,067 hours per

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1057

response. Burden means the total time, make its comments on EISs issued by ADDRESSES: Farm Credit effort, or financial resources expended other Federal agencies public. Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, by persons to generate, maintain, retain, Historically, EPA has met this mandate McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. or disclose or provide information to or by publishing weekly notices of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of for a Federal agency. This includes the availability of EPA comments, which this meeting of the Board will be open time needed to review instructions; includes a brief summary of EPA’s to the public (limited space available), develop, acquire, install, and utilize comment letters, in the Federal and parts will be closed to the public. technology and systems for the purposes Register. Since February 2008, EPA has In order to increase the accessibility to of collecting, validating, and verifying been including its comment letters on Board meetings, persons requiring information, processing and EISs on its Web site at: http:// assistance should make arrangements in maintaining information, and disclosing www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ advance. The matters to be considered and providing information; adjust the eisdata.html. Including the entire EIS at the meeting are: existing ways to comply with any comment letters on the Web site Open Session previously applicable instructions and satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement requirements which have subsequently to make EPA’s comments on EISs A. Approval of Minutes • changed; train personnel to be able to available to the public. Accordingly, December 10, 2009 respond to a collection of information; B. New Business after March 31, 2010, EPA will • search data sources; complete and discontinue the publication of this Auditors’ Report on FCA FY 2009/ review the collection of information; notice of availability of EPA comments 2008 Financial Statements C. Reports and transmit or otherwise disclose the in the Federal Register. • information. Office of Examination (OE) Respondents/Affected Entities: EIS No. 20090451, Draft EIS, FHWA, FL, Quarterly Report Manufacturers of Fuels and Fuel St. Johns River Crossing Project, Improved Highway Corridor and Closed Session* Additives. • Estimated Number of Respondents: 3. Bridge Crossing the St. Johns River Update on OE Oversight Activities Frequency of Response: On Occasion. between Clay and St. Johns Counties, Dated: January 6, 2010. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: FL, Comment Period Ends: 02/22/ Roland E. Smith, 21,200. 2010, Contact: Cathy Kendall 850– Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 942–9650. Estimated Total Annual Cost: [FR Doc. 2010–246 Filed 1–6–10; 4:15 pm] $2,831,480, which includes $2,244,480 EIS No. 20090452, Draft EIS, FHWA, BILLING CODE 6705–01–P in labor costs, $205,000 in capital costs MO, Rex Whitton Expressway Project, and $382,000 in O&M costs. To Safely and Reliably Improve Changes in the Estimates: There is a Personal and Freight Mobility, Reduce decrease of 8,950 hours in the total FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE Traffic Congestion, U.S. 50/63 (Rex CORPORATION estimated burden currently identified in Whitton Expressway, also Known as the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Whitton) Facility in Cole County, MO, Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Burdens. This decrease is the result of Comment Period Ends: 02/22/2010, Meeting reduced activity with the completion of Contact: Peggy Casey 573–636–7104. the MMT alternative Tier 2 testing Pursuant to the provisions of the program the near completion of the Dated: January 5, 2010. ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 oxygenate alternative Tier 2 testing Robert W. Hargrove, U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that program. Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office the Federal Deposit Insurance of Federal Activities. Dated: December 24, 2009. Corporation’s Board of Directors will [FR Doc. 2010–120 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Richard T. Westlund, meet in open session at 10 a.m. on BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Tuesday, January 12, 2010, to consider Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. the following matters: SUMMARY AGENDA: [FR Doc. 2010–150 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] No substantive discussion of the following items is BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION anticipated. These matters will be Farm Credit Administration Board; resolved with a single vote unless a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Regular Meeting member of the Board of Directors AGENCY requests that an item be moved to the AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. discussion agenda. [ER–FRL–8987–2] SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, Summary reports, status reports, reports Environmental Impacts Statements; pursuant to the Government in the of the Office of Inspector General, and Notice of Availability Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of reports of actions taken pursuant to the regular meeting of the Farm Credit authority delegated by the Board of Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Administration Board (Board). Directors. Activities, General Information (202) DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of DISCUSSION AGENDA: Memorandum and 564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ resolution re: Advance Notice of compliance/nepa/. the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in Proposed Rulemaking on Employee Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact McLean, Virginia, on January 14, 2010, Compensation. Statements filed 12/28/2009 through from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board The meeting will be held in the Board 01/01/2010 pursuant to 40 CFR concludes its business. Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC 1506.9. Building located at 550 17th Street, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NW., Washington, DC. Notice Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm In accordance with Section 309(a) of Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– * Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to 4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 552b(c)(8) and (9).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

This Board meeting will be Webcast Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve live via the Internet and subsequently System, January 5, 2010. System, January 5, 2010. made available on-demand Robert deV. Frierson, Robert deV. Frierson, approximately one week after the event. Deputy Secretary of the Board. Deputy Secretary of the Board. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/ [FR Doc. 2010–90 Filed 00–00–10; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2010–91 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] boardmeetings.asp to view the event. If BILLING CODE 6210–01–S BILLING CODE 6210–01–S you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM The FDIC will provide attendees with DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Formations of, Acquisitions by, and auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language HUMAN SERVICES Mergers of Bank Holding Companies interpretation) required for this meeting. President’s Advisory Council for Faith- Those attendees needing such assistance The companies listed in this notice based and Neighborhood Partnerships should call (703) 562–6067 (Voice or have applied to the Board for approval, TTY), to make necessary arrangements. pursuant to the Bank Holding Company In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Requests for further information Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) the Federal Advisory Committee Act concerning the meeting may be directed (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part (Pub. L. 92–463), the President’s to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive 225), and all other applicable statutes Advisory Council for Faith-based and Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) and regulations to become a bank Neighborhood Partnerships announces 898–7043. holding company and/or to acquire the the following meeting: assets or the ownership of, control of, or Dated: January 5, 2010. Name: President’s Advisory Council the power to vote shares of a bank or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. for Faith-based and Neighborhood bank holding company and all of the Partnerships Council Meeting. Valerie J. Best, banks and nonbanking companies Time and Date: January 11th and Assistant Executive Secretary. owned by the bank holding company, January 12th from 4–6 p.m. EST. [FR Doc. 2010–180 Filed 1–6–10; 11:15 am] including the companies listed below. Place: Meetings will be held via BILLING CODE P The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the conference call. Please contact Mara Board, are available for immediate Vanderslice for call-in information at inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank [email protected]. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM indicated. The application also will be Status: Open to the public, limited available for inspection at the offices of only by the space available. Conference Change in Bank Control Notices; the Board of Governors. Interested call line will be available. Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank persons may express their views in Purpose: The Council brings together Holding Companies writing on the standards enumerated in leaders and experts in fields related to the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the the work of faith-based and The notificants listed below have proposal also involves the acquisition of neighborhood organizations in order to: applied under the Change in Bank a nonbanking company, the review also Identify best practices and successful Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and includes whether the acquisition of the modes of delivering social services; § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 nonbanking company complies with the evaluate the need for improvements in CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank standards in section 4 of the BHC Act the implementation and coordination of holding company. The factors that are (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise public policies relating to faith- based considered in acting on the notices are noted, nonbanking activities will be and other neighborhood organizations; set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 conducted throughout the United States. and make recommendations for changes U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). Additional information on all bank in policies, programs, and practices. The notices are available for holding companies may be obtained Contact Person For Additional immediate inspection at the Federal from the National Information Center Information: Mara Vanderslice at Reserve Bank indicated. The notices website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. [email protected]. also will be available for inspection at Unless otherwise noted, comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the office of the Board of Governors. regarding each of these applications Please Interested persons may express their must be received at the Reserve Bank contact Mara Vanderslice for more views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of information about how to attend the indicated for that notice or to the offices Governors not later than February 3, meeting or join via conference call line. of the Board of Governors. Comments 2010. Agenda: Topics to be discussed must be received not later than January A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas include deliberation on draft 24, 2010. City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice recommendations for Council report. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas The call on January 11th will be devoted (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice City, Missouri 64198-0001: to the Reform of the Office draft taskforce report. The January 12th call President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 1. Colorow Investment Corp, will look at the Economic Recovery and Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: Greenwood Village, Colorado, to become Inter-Religious Cooperation draft a bank holding company byacquiring 1. James J. Banks, Chicago Illinois, to taskforce reports. retain 10 percent or more, and to 100 percent of the voting shares of acquire additional voting shares of TBHC, Inc., and thereby indirectly Dated: December 28, 2009. Belmont Financial Group, Inc., Chicago, acquire Centennial Bank, both in Mara L. Vanderslice, Illinois, and thereby indirectly retain Centennial, Colorado. Special Assistant. control of Belmont Bank and Trust [FR Doc. 2010–145 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Company, Chicago, Illinois. BILLING CODE 4154–07–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1059

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Ultimately, CMS decides whether to 410–786–3330. For all other issues call HUMAN SERVICES approve the plan pricing (i.e., payment 410–786–1326.) and premium) proposed by each 3. Type of Information Collection Centers for Medicare & Medicaid organization. Refer to the supporting Request: Extension of a currently Services document attachment ‘‘C’’ for a list of approved collection; Title of [Document Identifier: CMS–10142, CMS–R– changes. Form Number: CMS–10142 Information Collection: Medicare 262, CMS–R–0282 and CMS–R–64] (OMB#: 0938–0944); Frequency: Advantage Appeals and Grievance Data Reporting—Yearly; Affected Public: Disclosure Requirements (42 CFR Agency Information Collection Business or other for-profit and Not-for- § 422.111); Use: Medicare Advantage Activities: Submission for OMB profit institutions; Number of (MA) organizations must disclose Review; Comment Request Respondents: 550; Total Annual information pertaining to the number of Responses: 6,050; Total Annual Hours: disputes, and their disposition in the AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 42,350. (For policy questions regarding aggregate, with the categories of Medicaid Services, HHS. this collection contact Diane Spitalnic at grievances and appeals to any In compliance with the requirement 410–786–5745. For all other issues call individual eligible to elect an MA of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 410–786–1326.) organization who requests this Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 2. Type of Information Collection information. Medicare demonstrations Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Request: Revision of a currently also are required to conform to MA Services (CMS), Department of Health approved collection; Title of appeals regulations and thus are and Human Services, is publishing the Information Collection: CY 2011 Plan included in the count of organizations following summary of proposed Benefit Package (PBP) Software and affected by this requirement. MA collections for public comment. Formulary Submission; Use: Under the organizations also are required by the Interested persons are invited to send Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), statute and the MA regulation to comments regarding this burden Medicare Advantage (MA) and provide aggregate grievance data to MA estimate or any other aspect of this Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) eligible beneficiaries upon request. MA collection of information, including any organizations are required to submit eligible individuals will use this of the following subjects: (1) The plan benefit packages for all Medicare information to help them make necessity and utility of the proposed beneficiaries residing in their service informed decisions about their information collection for the proper area. The plan benefit package organization’s performance in the area performance of the Agency’s function; submission consists of the PBP software, of appeals and grievances. Form (2) the accuracy of the estimated formulary file, and supporting Number: CMS–R–0282 (OMB#: 0938– burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, documentation, as necessary. MA and 0778); Frequency: Reporting—Semi- utility, and clarity of the information to PDP organizations use the PBP software annually and Yearly; Affected Public: be collected; and (4) the use of to describe their organization’s plan Business or other for-profits and Not- automated collection techniques or benefit packages, including information for-profit institutions; Number of other forms of information technology to on premiums, cost sharing, Respondents: 629; Total Annual minimize the information collection authorization rules, and supplemental Responses: 47,175; Total Annual Hours: burden. benefits. They also generate a formulary 4,931.36. (For policy questions 1. Type of Information Collection to describe their list of drugs, including regarding this collection contact Request: Revision of a currently information on prior authorization, step Stephanie Simons at 206–615–2420. For approved collection; Title of therapy, tiering, and quantity limits. all other issues call 410–786–1326.) Information Collection: CY 2011 Bid Additionally, CMS uses the PBP and 4. Type of Information Collection Pricing Tool (BPT) for Medicare formulary data to review and approve Request: Extension of the currently Advantage (MA) Plans and Prescription the plan benefit packages proposed by approved collection; Title of Drug Plans (PDP); Use: Under the each MA and PDP organization. Information Collection: Indirect Medical Medicare Prescription Drug, CMS requires that MA and PDP Education (IME) and Supporting Improvement, and Modernization Act of organizations submit a completed PBP Regulations at 42 CFR 412.105; Direct 2003 (MMA), and implementing and formulary as part of the annual Graduate Medical Education (GME) and regulations at 42 CFR, Medicare bidding process. During this process, Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR Advantage organizations (MAO) and organizations prepare their proposed 413.75 through 413.83; Use: The Prescription Drug Plans are required to plan benefit packages for the upcoming information collected on interns and submit an actuarial pricing ‘‘bid’’ for contract year and submit them to CMS residents (IRs) is used by the Medicare each plan offered to Medicare for review and approval. Based on Part A fiscal intermediaries (FI) and Part beneficiaries for approval by CMS. operational changes and policy A Medicare Administrative Contractors MAOs and PDPs use the Bid Pricing clarifications to the Medicare program (MAC) to verify the number of IRs used Tool (BPT) software to develop their and continued input and feedback by in the calculation of Medicare program actuarial pricing bid. The information the industry, CMS has made the payments for indirect medical education provided in the BPT is the basis for the necessary changes to the plan benefit (IME) as well as direct graduate medical plan’s enrollee premiums and CMS package submission. Refer to the education (GME). The IR data collected payments for each contract year. The supporting document ‘‘Appendix B’’ for from the hospitals is processed through tool collects data such as medical a list of changes. Form Number: CMS– computers at FIs/MACs to identify any expense development (from claims data R–262 (OMB#: 0938–0763); Frequency: duplicated time based upon the and/or manual rating), administrative Reporting—Yearly; Affected Public: accumulated time of each individual expenses, profit levels, and projected Business or other for-profit and Not-for- that worked at one or more hospitals. plan enrollment information. By statute, profit institutions; Number of The identification of duplicate IRs is completed BPTs are due to CMS by the Respondents: 475; Total Annual necessary to ensure that no IR is first Monday of June each year. CMS Responses: 4988; Total Annual Hours: counted more than once. reviews and analyzes the information 12,113. (For policy questions regarding The FIs/MACs use the information provided on the Bid Pricing Tool. this collection contact Sara Walters at collected on IRs to help ensure that all

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

program payments for IME and GME are DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ based upon an accurate number of FTE– HUMAN SERVICES PaperworkReductionActof1995, or IRs, determined in accordance with E-mail your request, including your Medicare regulations. The IR data Centers for Medicare & Medicaid address, phone number, OMB number, submitted by the hospitals are used by Services and CMS document identifier, to the FIs/MACs during their audits of the [Document Identifier: CMS–906] [email protected], or call the providers’ cost reports. The audit Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786– procedures help assure that the Agency Information Collection 1326. In commenting on the proposed information reported was correct, and Activities: Proposed Collection; information collections please reference that IRs who should not have been Comment Request the document identifier or OMB control reported by the hospitals (or portions of AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & number. To be assured consideration, the IRs’ time) are not included in the Medicaid Services, HHS. comments and recommendations must FTE count. The FIs/MACs also use In compliance with the requirement be submitted in one of the following reports of duplicate IRs to prevent of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the ways by March 9, 2010: improper payment for IME and GME. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 1. Electronically. You may submit Form Number: CMS–R–64 (OMB#: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid your comments electronically to http:// 0938–0456); Frequency: Reporting— Services (CMS) is publishing the www.regulations.gov. Follow the Yearly; Affected Public: Business or following summary of proposed instructions for ‘‘Comment or other for-profit and Not-for-profit collections for public comment. Submission’’ or ‘‘More Search Options’’ institutions; Number of Respondents: Interested persons are invited to send to find the information collection 1,190; Total Annual Responses: 1,190; comments regarding this burden document(s) accepting comments. Total Annual Hours: 2,380. (For policy estimate or any other aspect of this 2. By regular mail. You may mail questions regarding this collection collection of information, including any written comments to the following contact Milton Jacobson at 410–786– of the following subjects: (1) The address: CMS, Office of Strategic 7553. For all other issues call 410–786– necessity and utility of the proposed Operations and Regulatory Affairs, 1326.) information collection for the proper Division of Regulations Development, performance of the agency’s functions; Attention: Document Identifier/OMB To obtain copies of the supporting (2) the accuracy of the estimated Control Number, Room C4–26–05, 7500 statement and any related forms for the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, Security Boulevard, Baltimore, proposed paperwork collections utility, and clarity of the information to Maryland 21244–1850. referenced above, access CMS Web site be collected; and (4) the use of Dated: December 24, 2009. address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ automated collection techniques or PaperworkReductionActof1995, or other forms of information technology to Michelle Shortt, E-mail your request, including your minimize the information collection Director, Regulations Development Group, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory address, phone number, OMB number, burden. 1. Type of Information Collection Affairs. and CMS document identifier, to [FR Doc. E9–31301 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] [email protected], or call the Request: Revision of a currently BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Reports Clearance Office on 410–786– approved collection; Title of 1326. Information Collection: The Fiscal Soundness Reporting Requirements; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND To be assured consideration, Use: CMS is assigned responsibility for comments and recommendations for the overseeing all Medicare Advantage HUMAN SERVICES proposed information collections must Organizations (MAO), Prescription Drug Food and Drug Administration be received by the OMB desk officer at Plan (PDP) sponsors, 1876 Cost Plans, the address below, no later than 5 p.m. Demonstration Plans and PACE [Docket No. FDA–2009–D–0568] on February 8, 2010. organizations on-going financial performance. Specifically, CMS needs Draft Guidance for Industry on OMB, Office of Information and Planning for the Effects of High Regulatory Affairs. Attention: CMS Desk the requested collection of information to establish that contracting entities Absenteeism to Ensure Availability of Officer. Fax Number: 202–395–6974. E- Medically Necessary Drug Products; mail: [email protected]. within those programs maintain fiscally sound organizations. Refer to the Availability Dated: December 24, 2009. supporting documents for a list of AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Michelle Shortt, changes to this collection. Form HHS. Director, Regulations Development Group, Number: CMS–906 (OMB#: 0938–0469); ACTION: Notice. Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Frequency: Reporting—Yearly and Affairs. Quarterly; Affected Public: Private SUMMARY: The Food and Drug [FR Doc. E9–31299 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Sector: Business or other for-profits and Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 514; Total Annual industry entitled ‘‘Planning for the Responses: 1039; Total Annual Hours: Effects of High Absenteeism to Ensure 346. (For policy questions regarding this Availability of Medically Necessary collection contact Robert Ahern at 410– Drug Products.’’ The draft guidance 786–0073. For all other issues call 410– encourages manufacturers of medically 786–1326.) necessary drug products (MNPs) and To obtain copies of the supporting components to develop contingency statement and any related forms for the production plans in the event of an proposed paperwork collections emergency that results in high referenced above, access CMS’ Web Site absenteeism at one or more production

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1061

facilities. The purpose of the draft draft guidance is intended for Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 guidance is to provide to industry manufacturers of finished drug products U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal considerations for developing such as well as manufacturers of the raw agencies to provide a 60-day notice in emergency plans, as well as to discuss materials necessary for manufacturing the Federal Register concerning each the Center for Drug Evaluation and an MNP. proposed collection of information Research’s (CDER’s) intended approach The purpose of this draft guidance is before submitting the collection to OMB to assist in avoiding drug product to provide to industry considerations for for approval. To comply with this shortages that may have a negative developing emergency plans, as well as requirement, FDA is publishing this impact on the national public health to discuss CDER’s intended approach to notice of the proposed collection of during such emergencies. assist in avoiding shortages that may information set forth in this document. DATES: Although you can comment on have a negative impact on the national With respect to the collection of any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR public health during such emergencies. information associated with this draft 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency This draft guidance applies to guidance, FDA invites comments on considers your comment on this draft manufacturers of drug and therapeutic these topics: (1) Whether the proposed guidance before it begins work on the biologic products regulated by CDER, information collected is necessary for final version of the guidance, submit and any components of those products. the proper performance of FDA’s written or electronic comments on the These considerations include, but are functions, including whether the draft guidance by March 9, 2010. not limited to: information will have practical utility; Submit written comments on the • General preparedness through (2) the accuracy of FDA’s estimated proposed collection of information by employee education and immunization, burden of the proposed information March 9, 2010. • Prioritization of manufactured collected, including the validity of the products based on medical necessity, methodology and assumptions used; (3) ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for • single copies of the draft guidance to the Developing training, manufacturing ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Division of Drug Information, Center for and laboratory contingencies for high clarity of the information collected; and absenteeism, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of Drug Evaluation and Research, Food • and Drug Administration, 10903 New How to plan for returning to normal information collected on the Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, operations. respondents, including through the use This draft guidance is being issued Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send of automated collection techniques, one self-addressed adhesive label to consistent with FDA’s good guidance when appropriate, and other forms of assist that office in processing your practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). information technology. requests. Submit written comments on The draft guidance, when finalized, will The draft guidance recommends that the draft guidance to the Division of represent the agency’s current thinking manufacturers of drug and therapeutic Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food on this topic. It does not create or confer biological products and manufacturers and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers any rights for or on any person and does of raw materials and components used Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. not operate to bind FDA or the public. in those products develop a written Emergency Plan (Plan) for maintaining Submit electronic comments to http:// An alternative approach may be used if an adequate supply of MNPs during an www.regulations.gov. See the such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes emergency that results in high employee SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for absenteeism. The draft guidance electronic access to the draft guidance and regulations. discusses the issues that should be document. II. Comments covered by the Plan, such as: (1) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons may submit to the Identifying a person or position title (as Thomas Christl, Center for Drug Division of Dockets Management (see well as two designated alternates) with Evaluation and Research, Food and ADDRESSES) written or electronic the authority to activate and deactivate Drug Administration, 10903 New comments regarding this document. the Plan and make decisions during the Hampshire Ave., WO Bldg. 51, rm. Submit a single copy of electronic emergency; (2) prioritizing the 3359, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301– comments or two paper copies of any manufacturer’s drug products based on 796–2057. mailed comments, except that medical necessity; (3) identifying SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: individuals may submit one paper copy. actions that should be taken prior to an Comments are to be identified with the anticipated period of high absenteeism; I. Background docket number found in brackets in the (4) identifying criteria for activating the FDA is announcing the availability of heading of this document. Received Plan; (5) performing quality risk a draft guidance for industry entitled comments may be seen in the Division assessments to determine which ‘‘Planning for the Effects of High of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. manufacturing activities may be Absenteeism to Ensure Availability of and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. reduced to enable the company to meet Medically Necessary Drug Products.’’ a demand for MNPs; (6) returning to The draft guidance encourages III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 normal operations and conducting a manufacturers of medically necessary Under the Paperwork Reduction Act post-execution assessment of the drug products (MNPs) and components of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501– execution outcomes; and (7) testing the to develop contingency production 3520), Federal agencies must obtain Plan. The draft guidance recommends plans in the event of an emergency that approval from the Office of Management developing a Plan for each individual results in high absenteeism at one or and Budget (OMB) for each collection of manufacturing facility as well as a more production facilities. In particular, information that they conduct or broader Plan that addresses multiple the draft guidance provides sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’ is sites within the organization (for recommendations regarding defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR purposes of this analysis, we consider considerations for the development and 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests the Plan for an individual implementation of a contingency or requirements that members of the manufacturing facility as well as the production plan, including specific public submit reports, keep records, or broader Plan to comprise one Plan for elements to include in such a plan. The provide information to a third party. each manufacturer). Based on CDER’s

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

data on the number of manufacturers two notifications (for purposes of this The following collections of that would be covered by the draft analysis, we consider an activation and information found in FDA current good guidance, we estimate that a deactivation notification to equal one manufacturing practice (CGMP) approximately 70 manufacturers will notification) will be sent to CDER by regulations in part 211 (21 CFR part develop an Emergency Plan as approximately two manufacturers each 211) are approved under OMB control recommended by the draft guidance year, and that each notification will take number 0190–0139. The draft guidance (i.e., 1 Plan per manufacturer to include approximately 16 hours to prepare and encourages manufacturers to maintain all manufacturing facilities, sites, and submit. records, in accordance with the CGMP drug products), and that each Plan will This draft guidance also refers to requirements (see, e.g., § 211.180), that take approximately 500 hours to previously approved collections of support decisions to carry out changes develop, maintain, and update. to approved procedures for The draft guidance also encourages information found in FDA regulations. Under the draft guidance, if a manufacturing and release of products manufacturers to include a procedure in under the Plan. The draft guidance their Plan for notifying CDER when the manufacturer obtains information after releasing a MNP under its Plan leading states: A Plan should be developed, Plan is activated and when returning to written, reviewed, and approved within normal operations. The draft guidance to suspicion that the product might be the site’s change control quality system recommends that these notifications defective, CDER should be contacted in accordance with the requirements in occur within 1 day of a Plan’s activation immediately §§ 211.100(a) and 211.160(a); execution and within 1 day of a Plan’s ([email protected]) in of the Plan should be documented in deactivation. The draft guidance adherence to existing recall reporting accordance with the requirements specifies the information that should be regulations (21 CFR 7.40) (OMB control included in these notifications, such as number 0910–0249) or defect reporting described in § 211.100(b); and standard which drug products will be requirements for drug application operating procedures should be manufactured under altered procedures, products (21 CFR 314.81(b)(1)) and reviewed and revised or supplementary which products will have therapeutic biological products procedures developed and approved to manufacturing temporarily delayed, and regulated by CDER (21 CFR 600.14) enable execution of the Plan. any anticipated or potential drug (OMB control numbers 0910–0001 and FDA estimates the burden of this shortages. We expect that approximately 0910–0458, respectively). collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1

Number of Number of Responses Hours per Respondents per Respondent Total Responses Response Total Hours

Notify FDA of Plan activation and deactivation 2 1 2 16 32

Total 32 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED RECORDKEEPING BURDEN1

Number of Number of Records Hours per Recordkeepers per Recordkeeping Total Records Record Total Hours

Develop initial Plan 70 1 70 500 35,000

Total 35,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

IV. Electronic Access DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Place: CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE., HUMAN SERVICES Building 106, First Floor, Rooms 1B, Atlanta, Persons with access to the Internet Georgia 30341. may obtain the document at either Centers for Disease Control and Status: Open: 8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m., January http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/Guidance 22, 2010. Closed: 11:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m., Prevention January 22, 2010. ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Purpose: The board makes Guidances/default.htm or http:// Board of Scientific Counselors, recommendations regarding policies, www.regulations.gov. National Center for Injury Prevention strategies, objectives, and priorities, and Dated: January 4, 2010. and Control, (BSC, NCIPC) reviews progress toward injury prevention goals and provides evidence in injury David Dorsey, In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of prevention-related research and programs. Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, the Federal Advisory Committee Act The board provides advice on the appropriate balance of intramural and extramural Planning and Budget. (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease [FR Doc. 2010–87 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] research, and provides advice on the Control and Prevention (CDC) structure, progress and performance of BILLING CODE 4160–01–S announces, the following meeting of the intramural programs. The Board of Scientific aforementioned committee: Counselors is also designed to provide guidance on extramural scientific program Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m., matters, including the: (1) Review of January 22, 2010. extramural research concepts for funding

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1063

opportunity announcements; (2) conduct of Center, Building 19, Room 232, CLIAC accepts written comments until Secondary Peer Review of extramural Auditorium B, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. the date of the meeting (unless research grants, cooperative agreements, and Online Registration Required: In order otherwise stated). However, the contracts applications received in response to to expedite the security clearance the funding opportunity announcements as it comments should be received at least relates to the Center’s programmatic balance process at the CDC Roybal Campus one week prior to the meeting date so and mission; (3) submission of secondary located on Clifton Road, all CLIAC that the comments may be made review recommendations to the Center attendees are required to register for the available to the Committee for their Director of applications to be considered for meeting online at least 14 days in consideration and public distribution. funding support; (4) review of research advance at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/ Written comments, one hard copy with portfolios; and (5) review of program default.aspx by clicking the ‘‘Register for original signature, should be provided proposals. The board shall provide guidance a Meeting’’ link and completing all to the contact person below. Written on the National Center of Injury Prevention forms according to the instructions comments will be included in the and Control’s programs and research given. Please complete all the required activities by conducting scientific peer meeting’s Summary Report. fields before submitting your review of intramural research and programs Contact Person for Additional registration and submit no later than within the National Center for Injury Information: Nancy Anderson, Chief, January 26, 2010. Prevention and Control; by ensuring Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, adherence to Office of Management and Status: Open to the public, limited Budget requirements for intramural peer only by the space available. The meeting Division of Laboratory Systems, review; and by monitoring the overall room accommodates approximately 100 National Center for Preparedness, direction, focus, and success of the National people. Detection, and Control of Infectious Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Purpose: This Committee is charged Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Matters to be Discussed: As this meeting of with providing scientific and technical Mailstop F–11, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; the Board of Scientific Counselors, the board advice and guidance to the Secretary of telephone (404) 498–2741; fax (404) will be discussing the upcoming portfolio Health and Human Services, the 498–2219; or via e-mail at topics, activities promoting the Injury [email protected]. Research Agenda, and other scientific Assistant Secretary for Health, and the matters. Director, CDC, regarding the need for, The Director, Management Analysis Agenda items are subject to change as and the nature of, revisions to the and Services Office, has been delegated priorities dictate. standards under which clinical the authority to sign Federal Register Contact Person for More Information: Dr. laboratories are regulated; the impact on Notices pertaining to announcements of Gwendolyn Cattledge, PhD, MSEH, Deputy medical and laboratory practice of meetings and other committee Associate Director for Science and the proposed revisions to the standards; and Designated Federal Officer for the Board of management activities, for CDC and the Scientific Counselors, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 the modification of the standards to Agency for Toxic Substances and Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop F–63, accommodate technological advances. Disease Registry. Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) Dated: December 30, 2009. 488–1430. will include updates from the CDC, the The Director, Management Analysis and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Gary J. Johnson, Services Office, has been delegated the Services, and the Food and Drug Acting Director, Management Analysis and authority to sign Federal Register notices Administration; a report from the CLIAC Services Office, Centers for Disease Control pertaining to announcements of meetings and Biochemical Genetic Testing Workgroup and Prevention. other committee management activities, for [FR Doc. 2010–100 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] both CDC and the Agency for Toxic and discussion of the Workgroup’s BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Substances and Disease Registry. proposals related to good laboratory practices for biochemical genetic Gary J. Johnson, testing; and presentations and Acting Director, Management Analysis and discussions related to electronic health DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Services Office, Centers for Disease Control records and electronic transmission of HUMAN SERVICES and Prevention. laboratory information. [FR Doc. 2010–22 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Agenda items are subject to change as National Institutes of Health BILLING CODE 4163–18–P priorities dictate. Providing Oral or Written Comments: National Institute of Dental & It is the policy of CLIAC to accept Craniofacial Research; Notice of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND written public comments and provide a Closed Meeting HUMAN SERVICES brief period for oral public comments Pursuant to section 10(d) of the whenever possible. Centers for Disease Control and Oral Comments: In general, each Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Prevention individual or group requesting to make amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is an oral presentation will be limited to hereby given of the following meeting. Clinical Laboratory Improvement a total time of five minutes (unless The meeting will be closed to the Advisory Committee (CLIAC) otherwise indicated). Speakers must public in accordance with the In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of also submit their comments in writing provisions set forth in sections the Federal Advisory Committee Act for inclusion in the meeting’s Summary 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Report. To assure adequate time is as amended. The grant applications and Control and Prevention (CDC) scheduled for public comments, the discussions could disclose announces the following committee individuals or groups planning to make confidential trade secrets or commercial meeting: an oral presentation should, when property such as patentable material, Times and Dates: possible, notify the contact person and personal information concerning 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., February 9, 2010. below at least one week prior to the individuals associated with the grant 8:30 a.m.–3 p.m., February 10, 2010. meeting date. applications, the disclosure of which Place: CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Written Comments: For individuals or would constitute a clearly unwarranted Tom Harkin Global Communications groups unable to attend the meeting, invasion of personal privacy.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Name of Committee: National Institute of Date: February 1–2, 2010. Name of Committee: Bioengineering Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Emphasis Panel; Review U13. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Group; Nanotechnology Study Section. Date: February 11, 2010. applications. Date: February 1–2, 2010. Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, One Contact Person: Bo Hong, PhD, Scientific Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109. Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Contact Person: Joseph D. Mosca, PhD, Meeting) Drive, Room 6194, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD Scientific Review Officer, Center for Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific 20892, 301–435–5879, [email protected]. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Name of Committee: Oncology 2— Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5158, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Translational Clinical Integrated Review MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408– Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd, room Group; Basic Mechanisms of Cancer 9465, [email protected]. 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, md 20892–4878, Therapeutics Study Section. Name of Committee: Integrative, 301–594–4809, [email protected]. Date: February 1–2, 2010. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Integrated Review Group; Somatosensory and Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Chemosensory Systems Study Section. Disorders Research, National Institutes of applications. Date: February 1–2, 2010. Health, HHS) Place: Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Dated: January 4, 2010. NW., Washington, DC 20037. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Lambratu Rahman, PhD, Anna Snouffer, applications. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Scientific Review, National Institutes of Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA. Committee Policy. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, Contact Person: Bernard F. Driscoll, PhD, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–451– [FR Doc. 2010–96 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Scientific Review Officer, Center for 3493, [email protected]. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Scientific Review, National Institutes of Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5184, Translational Integrated Review Group; MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Cancer Etiology Study Section. 1242, [email protected]. Date: February 1–2, 2010. HUMAN SERVICES Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Translational Integrated Review Group; Agenda: To review and evaluate grant National Institutes of Health Tumor Microenvironment Study Section. applications. Date: February 1–2, 2010. Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Closed Meetings Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Contact Person: Cathleen L. Cooper, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: The Ritz-Carlton, 1150 22nd Street, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as NW., Washington, DC 20037. amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–443– Contact Person: Eun Ah Cho, PhD, hereby given of the following meetings. 4512, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for The meetings will be closed to the Scientific Review, National Institutes of public in accordance with the Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6202, Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; provisions set forth in sections MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451– Hepatobiliary Pathophysiology Study 4467, [email protected]. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Section. as amended. The grant applications and Date: February 1–2, 2010. Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and the discussions could disclose Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Behavioral Processes Integrated Review confidential trade secrets or commercial Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Group; Child Psychopathology and property such as patentable material, applications. Developmental Disabilities Study Section. Date: February 1–2, 2010. and personal information concerning Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. individuals associated with the grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications, the disclosure of which Bethesda, MD 20814. Contact Person: Rass M. Shayiq, PhD, applications. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Scientific Review Officer, Center for Place: The Fairmont Hotel, 2401 M Street, invasion of personal privacy. Scientific Review, National Institutes of NW., Washington, DC 20037. Name of Committee: Oncology 2— Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2182, Contact Person: Jane A. Doussard- Translational Clinical Integrated Review MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Roosevelt, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Group; Cancer Biomarkers Study Section. 2359, [email protected]. Center for Scientific Review, National Date: February 1–2, 2010. Name of Committee: Integrative, Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Integrated Review Group; Biological Rhythms (301) 435–4445, [email protected]. applications. and Sleep Study Section. Name of Committee: Integrative, Place: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 Date: February 1, 2010. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Integrated Review Group; Contact Person: Lawrence Ka-Yun Ng, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Neuroendocrinology, Neuroimmunology, and PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Behavior Study Section. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Date: February 2–3, 2010. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6152, Mission Bay Dr., San Diego, CA 92109. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 1719, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Name of Committee: Oncology 2— Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Translational Clinical Integrated Review Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1208, Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109. Group; Radiation Therapeutics and Biology MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, PhD, Study Section. 1119, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1065

Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: The Fairmont Hotel, 2401 M Street, Group; Gene and Drug Delivery Systems Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3134, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Study Section. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Contact Person: Jane A. Doussard- Date: February 3–4, 2010. 1119, [email protected]. Roosevelt, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Time: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Center for Scientific Review, National Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, applications. Group; Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, Place: Sir Francis Drake Hotel, 450 Powell Study Section. (301) 435–4445, [email protected]. Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Date: February 2–3, 2010. Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Contact Person: Amy L. Rubinstein, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Xenobiotic and Nutrient Disposition and Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Action Study Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5152 Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Date: February 2–3, 2010. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20037. Time: 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. 1159, [email protected]. Contact Person: Joseph Thomas Peterson, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Genetics Integrated Review Group; Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Genomics, Computational Biology and Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814. Technology Study Section. MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–443– Contact Person: Patricia Greenwel, PhD, Date: February 3–4, 2010. 8130, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2172, Place: Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse Virology—B Study Section. MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Square, Alexandria, VA 22314. Date: February 2–3, 2010. 1169, [email protected]. Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Name of Committee: Cell Biology Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Integrated Review Group; Nuclear and Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Cytoplasmic Structure/Function and Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2218, Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, Dynamics Study Section. MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– NW., Washington, DC 20036. Date: February 3–4, 2010. 0603, [email protected]. Contact Person: Robert Freund, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3200, Place: Pier V Hotel, 711 Eastern Avenue, Topics: Investigations on Primary MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Baltimore, MD 21202. Immunodeficiency Disease. 1050, [email protected]. Contact Person: Alexandra M. Ainsztein, Date: February 3, 2010. PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5144, applications. Group; Cardiac Contractility, Hypertrophy, Place: Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell and Failure Study Section. MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–451– 3848, [email protected]. Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Date: February 2–3, 2010. Contact Person: Jim Huang, PhD, Scientific Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Name of Committee: Bioengineering Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge applications. Group; Biomaterials and Biointerfaces Study Drive, Room 4095G, MSC 7812, Bethesda, Place: Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, Section. MD 20892, 301–435–1230, [email protected]. NW., Washington, DC 20037. Date: February 3–4, 2010. Name of Committee: Integrative, Contact Person: Olga A. Tjurmina, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Integrated Review Group; Neurotoxicology Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. and Alcohol Study Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4030B, Place: Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Date: February 3, 2010. MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451– Monica, 1707 Fourth Street, Santa Monica, Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. 1375, [email protected]. CA 90401. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Steven J. Zullo, PhD, Name of Committee: Integrative, applications. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Scientific Review, National Institutes of Integrated Review Group; Central Visual Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109. Processing Study Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5146, Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, PhD, Date: February 2, 2010. MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Scientific Review Officer, Center for Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 2810, [email protected]. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Integrative, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5181, applications. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Integrated Review Group; Cognitive 1033, [email protected]. Mission Dr., San Diego, CA 92109. Neuroscience Study Section. Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Contact Person: Judith A. Finkelstein, PhD, Date: February 3, 2010. Genetics Integrated Review Group; Molecular Scientific Review Officer, Center for Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Genetics B Study Section. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: February 3–4, 2010. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, applications. Time: 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–237– Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 9842, [email protected]. Mission Dr, San Diego, CA 92109. applications. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Contact Person: Judith A. Finkelstein, PhD, Place: Pier 5 Hotel, 711 Eastern Avenue, Review Special Emphasis Panel; Scientific Review Officer, Center for Baltimore, MD 21202. Collaborative Applications in Child Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Richard A. Currie, PhD, Psychopathology. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Date: February 2, 2010. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–237– Scientific Review, National Institutes of Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 9842, [email protected]. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Bioengineering MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– applications. Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review 1219, [email protected].

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Gastrointestinal Mucosal Pathobiology Study Contact Person: Ghenima Dirami, PhD, Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; Section. Scientific Review Officer, Center for 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, Date: February 4, 2010. Scientific Review, National Institutes of 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, Time: 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594– Institutes of Health, HHS) applications. 1321, [email protected]. Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Dated: December 30, 2009. Name of Committee: Integrative, Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Anna Snouffer, Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Integrated Review Group; Neurobiology of Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Contact Person: Peter J. Perrin, PhD, Motivated Behavior Study Section. Committee Policy. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Date: February 4–5, 2010. [FR Doc. 2010–98 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Scientific Review, National Institutes of Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2180, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– applications. 0682, [email protected]. Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109. Contact Person: Edwin C. Clayton, PhD, HUMAN SERVICES and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of National Institutes of Health and Function E Study Section. Date: February 4–5, 2010. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5180, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–408– Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 9041, [email protected]. Closed Meetings Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Name of Committee: Immunology Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Place: Crowne Plaza LAX, 5985 Century Integrated Review Group; Hypersensitivity, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045. Autoimmune, and Immune-mediated Diseases Study Section. amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Date: February 4–5, 2010. hereby given of the following meetings. Time: 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The meetings will be closed to the Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1102, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant public in accordance with the MSC 7760, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– applications. provisions set forth in sections 1747, [email protected]. Place: The Westin St. Francis Hotel, 335 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Name of Committee: Immunology Contact Person: Bahiru Gametchu, DVM, as amended. The grant applications and Integrated Review Group; Transplantation, the discussions could disclose PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Tolerance, and Tumor Immunology Study Scientific Review, National Institutes of confidential trade secrets or commercial Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4204, property such as patentable material, Date: February 4–5, 2010. MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– and personal information concerning Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 1225, [email protected]. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant individuals associated with the grant Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular applications. applications, the disclosure of which and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Place: Westin St. Francis Hotel, 335 Powell would constitute a clearly unwarranted Review Group; Cellular and Molecular Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. invasion of personal privacy. Biology of Glia Study Section. Contact Person: Jin Huang, PhD, Scientific Date: February 4–5, 2010. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Group; Lung Cellular, Molecular, and Drive, Room 4199, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD applications. Immunobiology Study Section. 20892, 301–435–1230, [email protected]. Place: Hyatt Regency Mission Bay, 1441 Date: February 3–4, 2010. Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Quivira Road, San Diego, CA 92109. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Contact Person: Toby Behar, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Sciences Integrated Review Group; Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Integrative Physiology of Obesity and Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Diabetes Study Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4136, Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231. Date: February 4–5, 2010. MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Contact Person: George M. Barnas, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 4433, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Immunology Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. Integrated Review Group; Cellular and Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2180, Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Molecular Immunology—A Study Section. MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Date: February 4–5, 2010. 0696, [email protected]. Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Name of Committee: Population Sciences Contact Person: Reed A. Graves, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Epidemiology of Cancer Study Section. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: Westin St. Francis Hotel, 335 Powell Date: February 4–5, 2010. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6166, Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402– Contact Person: Calbert A. Laing, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 6297, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Scientific Review, National Institutes of Place: Sir Francis Drake Hotel, 450 Powell Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4210, Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Group; Lung Injury, Repair, and Remodeling MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Contact Person: Denise Wiesch, PhD, Study Section. 1221, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Date: February 4–5, 2010. Name of Committee: Biology of Scientific Review, National Institutes of Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Development and Aging Integrated Review Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3150, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Group; Development—2 Study Section. MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– applications. Date: February 4–5, 2010. 0684, [email protected]. Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. applications.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1067

Place: The River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Time: 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Washington, DC 20037. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant HUMAN SERVICES Contact Person: Sherry L. Dupere, PhD, applications. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 National Institutes of Health Scientific Review, National Institutes of Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5136, Contact Person: Betty Hayden, PhD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National MSC 7843, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review Officer, Center for Institute of Child Health and Human 1021, [email protected]. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Development; Notice of Meeting Name of Committee: Integrative, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4206, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Integrated Review Group; Neurobiology of 1223, [email protected]. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Learning and Memory Study Section. Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Date: February 4–5, 2010. Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review hereby given of a meeting of the Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Group; Clinical Neuroscience and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant National Advisory Child Health and Neurodegeneration Study Section. applications. Human Development Council. Date: February 4, 2010. Place: Catamaran Resort Hotel and Spa, The meeting will be open to the 3999 Mission Blvd., San Diego, CA 92109. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. public as indicated below, with Contact Person: Bernard F. Driscoll, PhD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant attendance limited to space available. Scientific Review Officer, Center for applications. Individuals who plan to attend and Place: Hotel Nikko San Francisco, 222 Scientific Review, National Institutes of need special assistance, such as sign Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5184, Mason Street, San Francisco, CA. Contact Person: Seetha Bhagavan, PhD, language interpretation or other MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– reasonable accommodations, should 1242, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of notify the Contact Person listed below Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and in advance of the meeting. Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, Group; Respiratory Integrative Biology and MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237– The meeting will be closed to the Translational Research Study Section. 9838, [email protected]. public in accordance with the Date: February 4–5, 2010. Name of Committee: Integrative, provisions set forth in sections Time: 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Integrated Review Group; Auditory System as amended. The grant applications applications. Study Section. and/or contract proposals and the Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Date: February 4–5, 2010. discussions could disclose confidential Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. trade secrets or commercial property Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant such as patentable material, and Contact Person: Everett E. Sinnett, PhD, applications. personal information concerning Scientific Review Officer, Center for Place: Sheraton Park Hotel at the Anaheim Scientific Review, National Institutes of Resort, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, individuals associated with the grant Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2178, Anaheim, CA 92802. applications and/or contract proposals, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Contact Person: Lynn E. Luethke, PhD, the disclosure of which would 1016, [email protected]. Scientific Review Officer, Center for constitute a clearly unwarranted Name of Committee: Immunology Scientific Review, National Institutes of invasion of personal privacy. Integrated Review Group; Immunity and Host Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5166, Name of Committee: National Advisory Defense Study Section. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806– Child Health and Human Development Date: February 4–5, 2010. 3323, [email protected]. Council. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Name of Committee: Integrative, Date: January 28, 2010. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Open: 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. applications. Integrated Review Group; Sensorimotor Agenda: (1) A report by the Director, Place: The Westin St. Francis, 355 Powell Integration Study Section. NICHD; (2) Report of the Subcommittee on St., San Francisco, CA 94102. Date: February 5, 2010. Planning and Policy; (3) Division of Contact Person: Patrick K. Lai, PhD, Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Scientific Review Officer, Center for Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Research Presentation; and other business of Scientific Review, National Institutes of applications. the Council. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2215, Place: The Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Place: National Institutes of Health, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA. Building 31, 31 Center Drive, C-Wing, 1052, [email protected]. Contact Person: John Bishop, PhD, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892. Name of Committee: Immunology Scientific Review Officer, Center for Closed: 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Integrated Review Group; Vaccines Against Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Microbial Diseases Study Section. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, applications and/or proposals. Date: February 4–5, 2010. MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408– Contact Person: Yvonne T. Maddox, PhD, Deputy Director, National Institute of Child Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 9664, [email protected]. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Health and Human Development, NIH, 9000 applications. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Rockville Pike, MSC 7510, Building 31, Place: The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; Room 2A03, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 496– Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.306, 93.333, 1848. 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, Contact Person: Jian Wang, MD, PhD, Any interested person may file written Scientific Review Officer, Center for 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National comments with the committee by forwarding Scientific Review, National Institutes of Institutes of Health, HHS) the statement to the Contact Person listed on Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4218, Dated: January 4, 2010. this notice. The statement should include the MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Jennifer Spaeth, name, address, telephone number and when 2778, [email protected]. applicable, the business or professional Director, Office of Federal Advisory Name of Committee: Immunology affiliation of the interested person. Committee Policy. Integrated Review Group; Cellular and In the interest of security, NIH has Molecular Immunology—B Study Section. [FR Doc. 2010–99 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] instituted stringent procedures for entrance Date: February 4–5, 2010. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD received from the public, as well as will be inspected before being allowed on 20892. documents mentioned in this Notice as campus. Visitors will be asked to show one Contact Person: Rona L. Siskind, Executive being available in the docket, will form of identification (for example, a Secretary, AIDS Research Advisory become part of the docket and will be government-issued photo ID, driver’s license, Committee, Division of AIDS, NIAID/NIH, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 4139, available for inspection or copying at visit. Bethesda, MD 20892–7601, 301–435–3732. room W12–140 on the West Building Information is also available on the (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Institute’s/Center’s home page: http:// Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. www.nichd.nih.gov/about/nachhd.htm, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, where an agenda and any additional Microbiology and Infectious Diseases except Federal holidays. You may also information for the meeting will be posted Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) find the docket on the Internet at when available. http://www.regulations.gov. In order to facilitate public attendance at Dated: January 4, 2010. the open session of Council, reserve seating Anna Snouffer, A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http:// will be made available to the first five Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory individuals reserving seats in the main Committee Policy. www.regulations.gov. Additionally, meeting room, Conference Room 6. Please copies are available from: Commandant contact Ms. Lisa Kaeser, Program and Public [FR Doc. 2010–95 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] (CG–611), ATTN Paperwork Reduction Liaison Office, NICHD, at 301–496–0536 to BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Act (PRA) Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, make your reservation. Additional seating 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, will be available in the meeting overflow Washington, DC 20593–7101. rooms, Conference Rooms 7 and 8. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Individuals will also be able to view the SECURITY meeting via NIH Videocast. Please go to the Arthur Requina, Office of Information following link for Videocast access http:// Coast Guard Management, telephone 202–475–3523, www.nichd.nih.gov/about/overview/ or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on advisory/nachhd/virtual-meeting- [USCG–2009–1064] these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. 201001.cfm. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Information Collection Request to (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Operations, 202–366–9826, for Office of Management and Budget; Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; questions on the docket. 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; OMB Control Numbers: 1625–0087 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Research; 93.209, Contraception and Public Participation and Request for Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting Comments Institutes of Health, HHS) comments. Dated: December 31, 2009. The Coast Guard invites comments on SUMMARY: In compliance with the Anna Snouffer, whether this ICR should be granted Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the based on the collection being necessary Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Committee Policy. for the proper performance of Information Collection Request (ICR) Departmental functions. In particular, [FR Doc. 2010–97 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] and Analysis to the Office of the Coast Guard would appreciate BILLING CODE 4140–01–P Management and Budget (OMB) comments addressing: (1) The practical requesting an extension of its approval utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy for the following collection of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND of the estimated burden of the information: 1625–0087, International HUMAN SERVICES collection; (3) ways to enhance the Ice Patrol Customer Survey. Before quality, utility, and clarity of National Institutes of Health submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast information subject to the collection; Guard is inviting comments as and (4) ways to minimize the burden of National Institute of Allergy and described below. the collections on respondents, Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meeting DATES: Comments must reach the Coast including the use of automated Guard on or before March 9, 2010. collection techniques or other forms of Pursuant to section 10(a) of the information technology. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate We encourage you to respond to this amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is submissions to the docket [USCG–2009– request by submitting comments and hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS 1064], please use only one of the related materials. We will post all Research Advisory Committee, NIAID. following means: January 8, 2010. The meeting will be open to the (1) Online: http:// comments received, without change, to public, with attendance limited to space www.regulations.gov. http://www.regulations.gov. They will available. Individuals who plan to (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility include any personal information you attend and need special assistance, such (DMF) (M–30), U.S. Department of provide. We have an agreement with as sign language interpretation or other Transportation (DOT), West Building DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ‘‘ ’’ reasonable accommodations, should Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 Privacy Act paragraph below. Submitting comments: If you submit a notify the Contact Person listed below New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, comment, please include the docket in advance of the meeting. DC 20590–0001. (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail number [USCG–2009–1064], indicate Name of Committee: AIDS Research address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 the specific section of the document to Advisory Committee, NIAID. p.m., Monday through Friday, except which each comment applies, providing Date: February 1, 2010. Time: 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Federal holidays. The telephone number a reason for each comment. We Agenda: Reports from the Division Director is 202–366–9329. recommend you include your name, and other staff. (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. mailing address, an e-mail address, or Place: National Institutes of Health, The DMF maintains the public docket other contact information in the body of Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, for this Notice. Comments and material your document so that we can contact

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1069

you if we have questions regarding your Dated: December 18, 2009. written comments and suggestions on submission. You may submit your M.B. Lytle, proposed and/or continuing information comments and material by electronic Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant collection requests pursuant to the means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF Commandant for Command, Control, Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.104– at the address under ADDRESSES; but Communications, Computers and 13). Your comments should address one please submit them by only one means. Information Technology. of the following four points: If you submit them by mail or delivery, [FR Doc. 2010–105 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] (1) Evaluate whether the proposed submit them in an unbound format, no BILLING CODE 9110–04–P collection of information is necessary larger than 8–1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for the proper performance of the for copying and electronic filing. If you functions of the agency/component, submit them by mail and would like to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND including whether the information will know that they reached the Facility, SECURITY have practical utility; please enclose a stamped, self-addressed (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection postcard or envelope. We will consider agencies/components estimate of the all comments and material received Agency Information Collection burden of the proposed collection of during the comment period and will Activities: Passenger List/Crew List information, including the validity of address them accordingly. (Form I–418) the methodology and assumptions used; Viewing comments and documents: (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Go to http://www.regulations.gov to AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border clarity of the information to be view documents mentioned in this Protection, Department of Homeland collected; and Notice as being available in the docket. Security. (4) Minimize the burden of the Click on the ‘‘read comments’’ box, ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for collections of information on those who which will then become highlighted in comments; Extension of an existing are to respond, including the use of blue. In the ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert information collection: 1651–0103. appropriate automated, electronic, ‘‘USCG–2009–1064’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ mechanical, or other technological Click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border techniques or other forms of ‘‘Actions’’ column. You may also visit Protection (CBP) of the Department of information. the DMF in room W12–140 on the West Homeland Security has submitted the Title: Passenger List/Crew List. following information collection request Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey OMB Number: 1651–0103. to the Office of Management and Budget Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 Form Number: Form I–418. (OMB) for review and approval in a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Abstract: Form I–418 is used by accordance with the Paperwork Friday, except Federal holidays. masters or owners of vessels or aircraft Privacy Act: Anyone can search the Reduction Act: Passenger List/Crew List in complying with Sections 231 and 251 electronic form of all comments (Form I–418). This is a proposed of the Immigration and Nationality Act. received in dockets by the name of the extension of an information collection This Form is filled out upon arrival of individual submitting the comment (or that was previously approved. CBP is any person by water or by air at any port signing the comment, if submitted on proposing that this information within the United States. The master or behalf of an association, business, labor collection be extended with no change commanding officer of the vessel or union, etc.). You may review the to the burden hours. This document is aircraft is responsible for providing CBP Privacy Act statement regarding our published to obtain comments from the officers at the port of arrival with lists public dockets in the January 17, 2008 public and affected agencies. This or manifests of the persons onboard issue of the Federal Register (73 FR proposed information collection was such conveyances. 3316). previously published in the Federal Information Collection Request: Register (74 FR 54840) on October 23, Current Actions: This submission is Title: International Ice Patrol 2009, allowing for a 60-day comment being made to extend the expiration Customer Survey. period. Four comments were received. date with no change to the burden OMB Control Number: 1625–0087. This notice allows for an additional 30 hours. This information collection provides days for public comments. This process Type of Review: Extension (without feedback on the processes of delivery is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR change). and products distributed to the mariner 1320.10. Affected Public: Businesses. Estimated Number of Respondents: by the International Ice Patrol. DATES: Written comments should be Need: In accordance with Executive received on or before February 8, 2010. 95,000. Order 12862, the U.S. Coast Guard is Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 ADDRESSES: Interested persons are directed to conduct surveys (both hour. invited to submit written comments on qualitative and quantitative) to Estimated Total Annual Hours: the proposed information collection to determine the kind and quality of 95,000. the Office of Information and Regulatory services our customers want and expect, If additional information is required Affairs, Office of Management and as well as their satisfaction with USCG’s contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs Budget. Comments should be addressed existing services. This survey will be and Border Protection, Office of to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs limited to data collections which solicit Regulations and Rulings, 799 9th Street, and Border Protection, Department of strictly voluntary opinions and will not NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– Homeland Security, and sent via collect information that is required or 1177, at 202–325–0265. electronic mail to regulated. _ Dated: January 4, 2010. Forms: None. oira [email protected] or faxed Respondents: Owners and operators to (202) 395–5806. Tracey Denning, of vessels transiting the North Atlantic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Frequency: Annually. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Protection. Burden Estimate: The estimated encourages the general public and [FR Doc. 2010–107 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] burden remains at 120 hours a year. affected Federal agencies to submit BILLING CODE 9111–14–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Comments’’ portion of the online by visiting the Docket SECURITY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Management Facility in Room W12–140 below for instructions on submitting on the ground floor of the Department Coast Guard comments. of Transportation West Building, 1200 [Docket No. USCG–2009–1079] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, you have questions on this notice, call DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Cargo Securing Methods for Packages or e-mail Morgan Armstrong, telephone Monday through Friday, except Federal in Transport Vehicles or Freight 202–372–1419, e-mail: holidays. We have an agreement with Containers [email protected]. If you the Department of Transportation to use have questions on viewing or submitting the Docket Management Facility. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the material to the docket, call Renee V. ACTION: electronic form of comments received Notice of request for comments. Wright, Program Manager, Docket into any of our dockets by the name of SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. the individual submitting the comment comments from the public on methods SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (or signing the comment, if submitted for securing cargo in transport vehicles Public Participation and Request for on behalf of an association, business, and freight containers in order to Comments labor union, etc.). You may review a determine if a standardized approval or Privacy Act, system of records notice certification process or improved We encourage you to submit regarding our public dockets in the performance criteria for flexible comments and related material. All January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal strapping securing systems is needed. comments received will be posted, Register (73 FR 3316). Under current U.S. regulations and without change, to http:// international codes, there is no www.regulations.gov and will include Background and Purpose certification or qualification standard any personal information you have It has recently been brought to the for blocking, bracing, or for the use of provided. Coast Guard’s attention that significant strapping systems for securing cargo. Submitting comments: If you submit a damage and shifting of packages has Cargo must be secured to prevent comment, please include the docket purportedly occurred in cargo transport shifting in any direction during number for this notice (USCG–2009– units in which the cargo was secured transport. Packages of hazardous 1079) and provide a reason for each with flexible strapping. There is a materials must be braced and dunnaged suggestion or recommendation. You concern that without an approval within a container so that they are not may submit your comments and process, certain flexible strapping likely to be pierced or crushed and the material online, or by fax, mail or hand systems could be used even though they materials must be in proper condition delivery, but please use only one of may not adequately secure cargo when for transportation. Currently, the these means. We recommend that you properly installed. specific method for securing cargo is left include your name and a mailing Requirements for the securing of cargo to the discretion of the individual or address, an e-mail address, or a can be found in 49 CFR 176.76 and in company packing the container. The telephone number in the body of your Chapter 7.5 of the International Coast Guard is considering whether document so that we can contact you if Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) there is a need for a standardized we have questions regarding your Code. Additional recommendations can certification or approval process for submission. be found in the IMDG Code cargo securing systems. To submit your comment online, go to Supplement. These are the Guidelines http://www.regulations.gov, click on the for Packing of Cargo Transport Units DATES: Comments and related material ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will (CTUs), which were developed in 1996 must either be submitted to our online then become highlighted in blue. In the by the United Nations Economic docket via http://www.regulations.gov ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu Commission for Europe (UN ECE) on or before March 9, 2010 or reach the select ‘‘Notices’’ and insert ‘‘USCG– Working Party on Combined Transport, Docket Management Facility by that 2009–1079’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. Click the International Labor Organization date. ‘‘Search’’ then click on the balloon shape (ILO), and the International Maritime ADDRESSES: You may submit comments in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit Organization (IMO). These Guidelines identified by docket number USCG– your comments by mail or hand are based on the existing ILO/IMO 2009–1079 using any one of the delivery, submit them in an unbound Guidelines for Packing Cargo in Freight following methods: format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, Containers or Vehicles and are • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// suitable for copying and electronic applicable to transport operations by all www.regulations.gov. filing. If you submit them by mail and surface and water modes of • Fax: 202–493–2251. would like to know that they reached transportation and the whole • Mail: Docket Management Facility the Facility, please enclose a stamped, international transportation chain. (M–30), U.S. Department of self-addressed postcard or envelope. We As required in 49 CFR 176.76, cargo, Transportation, West Building Ground will consider all comments and material including hazardous materials, Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey received during the comment period. transported in vehicles and freight Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– Viewing the comments: To view the containers must be secured during 0001. comments, go to http:// transport to prevent shifting of the cargo • Hand delivery: Same as mail www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read and damage to the container. This address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 comments’’ box, which will then requirement is true for all modes of p.m., Monday through Friday, except become highlighted in blue. In the surface transportation due to the fact Federal holidays. The telephone number ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009– that containers are transported by is 202–366–9329. 1079’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the vessel, rail, and highway. Accordingly, To avoid duplication, please use only ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ the cargo must be adequately secured to one of these four methods. See the column. If you do not have access to the withstand the unique forces exerted on ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Internet, you may view the docket the packages during each of these modes

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1071

of transport. Although there are 2009–1079). The Coast Guard intends to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR recommended methods, the ultimate review and analyze all comments responsibility for properly securing received in order to develop a way Bureau of Land Management cargo inside a container (by blocking, forward for securing cargo in containers. [LLWO320000 L19900000 EX0000] bracing, and strapping) resides with the This notice is issued under authority packer of the container. of 5 U.S.C. 552. Extension of Approved Information U.S. regulations make reference to Collection, OMB Control Number dunnage as a method for securing cargo Dated: December 29, 2009. 1004–0194 and defines it in 49 CFR 176.2 as J.G. Lantz, ‘‘lumber of not less than 25 mm (0.98 Director of Commercial Regulations and AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, inch) commercial thickness or Standards. Interior. equivalent material laid over or against [FR Doc. 2010–106 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] ACTION: 60-day notice and request for structures such as tank tops, decks, BILLING CODE 9110–04–P comments. bulkheads, frames, plating, or ladders, SUMMARY: In compliance with the or used for filling voids or fitting around Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the cargo, to prevent damage during Bureau of Land Management (BLM) transportation.’’ However, there is no DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND announces its intention to request that reference made to flexible strapping URBAN DEVELOPMENT the Office of Management and Budget systems. The Department of (OMB) extend approval for the Transportation (DOT) has issued [Docket No. FR–5375–N–01] collection of information under 43 CFR exemptions to 49 CFR 176.76(a)(4), subpart 3809. The OMB previously allowing the use of fabric restraint Federal Property Suitable as Facilities approved this collection of information dunnage systems to secure certain To Assist the Homeless and assigned it the control number hazardous materials, when installed as 1004–0194. specified by the manufacturer’s AGENCY: Office of the Assistant instructions. DATES: You must submit your comments Secretary for Community Planning and to the BLM at the address below on or There are a variety of options for Development, HUD. developing a standard. One option is to before March 9, 2010. The BLM is not request that the UN ECE, ILO, and IMO ACTION: Notice. obligated to consider any comments consider incorporating flexible postmarked or received after the above strapping systems into their Guidelines. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies date. Another option is to have the unutilized, underutilized, excess, and ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to: International Standards Organization surplus Federal property reviewed by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau (ISO) develop testing and performance HUD for suitability for possible use to of Land Management, Mail Stop 401– requirements. The U.S. could also create assist the homeless. LS, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC domestic regulations for incorporation 20240, Attention: 1004–0194. You may DATES: Effective Date: January 8, 2010. into 49 CFR part 176. The final option also comment electronically at: is to continue operations as they FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. currently exist, allowing the packer to Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You determine the best method of securing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh may contact Adam Merrill, Solid cargo without a standardized approval Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, Minerals Group, at (202) 912–7044 or certification process. DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use The Coast Guard invites comments on TTY number for the hearing- and a telecommunication device for the deaf the following topics: speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these (TDD) may call the Federal Information • The need for a new approval telephone numbers are not toll-free), or Relay Service (FIRS) on 1–800–877– process or certification standard for call the toll-free Title V information line 8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a cargo securing systems. at 800–927–7588. week, to contact Mr. Merrill. You may • Information on currently used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In also contact Mr. Merrill to obtain a standards for the approval and use of copy, at no cost, of the regulations and cargo securing systems. accordance with the December 12, 1988 • court order in National Coalition for the forms that require this collection of Methods for ensuring or verifying information. that securing systems adequately secure Homeless v. Veterans Administration, cargo without damaging the container or No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB cargo. publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which • Existing test methods for securing identifying unutilized, underutilized, implement provisions of the Paperwork systems. excess and surplus Federal buildings Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), • Materials used for securing cargo and real property that HUD has require that interested members of the within the container (e.g. wood, plastic, reviewed for suitability for use to assist public and affected agencies be bags, web, wire, chain, etc.). the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the provided an opportunity to comment on • Allowances for movement of cargo purpose of announcing that no information collection and within the container when securing additional properties have been recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR systems are used. determined suitable or unsuitable this 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice • Information on cargo securing week. identifies information collections that systems that are currently being used to Dated: December 29, 2009. are contained in 43 CFR subpart 3809. secure cargo in containers, both The BLM will request that the OMB Mark R. Johnston, domestically and internationally. approve this information collection Written comments and responses to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. activity for a 3-year term. the above topics will be added to the [FR Doc. E9–31169 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Comments are invited on: (1) The docket number for this notice (USCG– BILLING CODE 4210–67–P need for the collection of information

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

for the performance of the functions of Forms undue degradation while conducting the agency; (2) the accuracy of the • Form 3809–1, Surface Management exploration and mining activities on agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to Surety Bond; public lands under the General Mining enhance the quality, utility and clarity • Form 3809–2, Surface Management Law (30 U.S.C. 22–54.). It also enables of the information collection; and (4) Personal Bond; the BLM to obtain financial guarantees ways to minimize the information • Form 3809–4, Bond Rider for the reclamation of public lands. This collection burden on respondents, such Extending Coverage of Bond to Assume collection of information is found at 43 as use of automated means of collection Liabilities for Operations Conducted by CFR subpart 3809, and in the forms of the information. A summary of the Parties Other Than the Principal; listed above. public comments will accompany the • Form 3809–4a, Surface Frequency: On occasion. BLM’s submission of the information Management Personal Bond Rider; and Description of Respondents: • collection requests to OMB. Form 3809–5, Notification of Operators and mining claimants. Change of Operator and Assumption of Estimated Reporting and The following information is provided Past Liability. Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The for the information collection: OMB Control Number: 1004–0194. currently approved annual reporting Title: Surface Management Activities Abstract: This collection of burden for this collection is 1,369 under the General Mining Law (43 CFR information enables the BLM to responses and 166,661 hours. The subpart 3809). determine whether operators and following tables detail the individual mining claimants are meeting their components and estimated annual hour responsibility to prevent unnecessary or burdens of this collection.

TABLE 1—INITIAL AND EXTENDED PLAN OF OPERATIONS

Number of Hours per 43 CFR citation Type of response responses response Total hours

3809.11 ...... Plan of Operations ...... 54 245 13,230 3809.401(c) ...... Data for EIS ...... 6 4,960 29.760 3809.401(c) ...... Data for Standard EA ...... 16 890 14,240 3809.401(c) ...... Data for Simple Exploration EA ...... 35 320 11,200

Totals ...... 111 ...... 68,430

TABLE 2—MODIFICATION OF PLAN OF OPERATIONS

Number of Hours per 43 CFR citation Type of response responses response Total hours

3809.430 and 3809.431 ...... Modification of Plan of Operations ...... 96 245 23,520 3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c) ...... Data for EIS ...... 2 4,960 9,920 3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c) ...... Data for Standard EA ...... 29 890 25,810 3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c) ...... Data for Simple Exploration EA ...... 62 320 19,840

Totals ...... 189 ...... 79,090

TABLE 3—INITIAL, MODIFIED AND EXTENDED NOTICE OF OPERATIONS

Number of Hours per 43 CFR citation Type of response responses response Total hours

3809.21 ...... Notice of Operations ...... 386 32 12,352 3809.330 ...... Modification of Notice of Operations ...... 108 32 3,456 3809.333 ...... Extension of Notice of Operations ...... 169 0.5 85

Totals ...... 663 ...... 15,893

TABLE 4—FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS

Number of Hours per 43 CFR citation Type of response responses response Total hours

3809.500 ...... Form 3809–1, Surface Management Surety 67 8 536 Bond. 3809.500 ...... Form 3809–2, Surface Management Per- 270 8 2,160 sonal Bond. 3809.500 ...... Form 3809–4, Bond Rider Extending Cov- 13 8 104 erage of Bond. 3809.500 ...... Form 3809–4a, Surface Management Per- 10 8 80 sonal Bond Rider.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1073

TABLE 4—FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Number of Hours per 43 CFR citation Type of response responses response Total hours

3809.116 ...... Form 3809–5, Notification of Change of Op- 46 8 368 erator and Assumption of Past Liability.

Totals ...... 406 ...... 3,248

Estimated Reporting and assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Holla opportunities for hunting, fishing, Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ Bend National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) wildlife observation, wildlife Burden: The only non-hour costs are for public review and comment. In this photography, and environmental $5,600 in fees for notarizing Forms Draft CCP/EA, we describe the education and interpretation. We will 3809–2 and 3809–4a ($20 per form × alternative we propose to use to manage review and update the CCP at least 280 forms annually = $5,600). this refuge for the 15 years following every 15 years in accordance with the The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 approval of the final CCP. Administration Act. U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an DATES: To ensure consideration, we CCP Alternatives, Including Our agency may not conduct or sponsor a must receive your written comments by Proposed Alternative collection of information unless it February 8, 2010. displays a currently valid OMB control ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, We developed four alternatives for number. Until OMB approves a and requests for information to: Mr. managing the refuge and chose collection of information, you are not Durwin Carter, Holla Bend National Alternative D as the proposed obligated to respond. Wildlife Refuge, 10448 Holla Bend alternative. Each alternative would The BLM will summarize all Road, Dardanelle, AR 72834; telephone: pursue the same four broad refuge responses to this notice and include 479–229–4300; e-mail: goals—wildlife, habitat, public use, and them in the request for OMB approval. [email protected]. The Draft CCP/ refuge administration. A full description All comments will become a matter of EA is available on compact disk or in is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize public record. hard copy. The Draft CCP/EA may also each alternative below. Before including your address, phone be accessed and downloaded from the Alternative A—Current Management number, e-mail address, or other Service’s Internet Site: http:// (No Action) personal identifying information in your southeast.fws.gov/planning. comment, you should be aware that Alternative A would continue current FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: your entire comment—including your Mr. management strategies, with little or no personal identifying information—may Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, Jackson, change in budgeting or funding. Under be made publicly available at any time. MS; telephone: 601–965–4903, this alternative, we would protect, While you can ask us in your comment extension 20. maintain, restore, and enhance 6,616 to withhold your personal identifying SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: acres of refuge lands and 441 additional information from public review, we Introduction acres included in a migratory bird cannot guarantee that we will be able to closure area around the refuge, With this notice, we continue the CCP do so. primarily focusing on the needs of process for Holla Bend NWR. We started migratory waterfowl. We would place Jean Sonneman, the process through a notice in the additional emphasis on the needs of Acting Information Collection Clearance Federal Register on May 17, 2007 (72 resident wildlife, migratory non-game Officer, Bureau of Land Management. FR 27837). birds, and threatened and endangered [FR Doc. 2010–92 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Background species. We would continue cooperative BILLING CODE 4310–84–P farming on 1,200 acres. We would The CCP Process continue mandated activities for The National Wildlife Refuge System protection of federally listed species. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Control of nuisance wildlife populations Fish and Wildlife Service 668dd–668ee), as amended by the would be undertaken as necessary. National Wildlife Refuge System Habitat management efforts would [FWS–R4–R–2009–N198; 40136–1265–0000– Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to concentrate on moist-soil management, S3] develop a CCP for each national wildlife waterfowl impoundments, and crop refuge. The purpose for developing a production. We would continue to Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge, CCP is to provide refuge managers with monitor invasive plants. Pope and Yell Counties, AR a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge We would maintain the current levels AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, purposes and contributing toward the of wildlife-dependent recreation Interior. mission of the National Wildlife Refuge activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft System, consistent with sound observation, wildlife photography, and comprehensive conservation plan and principles of fish and wildlife environmental education and environmental assessment; request for management, conservation, legal interpretation). We would maintain two comments. mandates, and our policies. In addition designated hiking trails, a 10-mile, self- to outlining broad management guided auto tour route (for wildlife SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and direction on conserving wildlife and observation and photography), and three Wildlife Service (Service), announce the their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife- boat launch ramps with gravel parking availability of a draft comprehensive dependent recreational opportunities areas, to the extent that these facilities conservation plan and environmental available to the public, including would not substantially interfere with or

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

detract from wildlife conservation. The objectives for forest-dwelling and early enhancements would greatly increase refuge would continue to be closed to successional birds, shorebirds, our capability to conduct environmental all migratory bird hunting, but would be woodcock, colonial waterbirds, marsh education and interpretation programs, opened to deer hunting, using archery/ birds, and wood ducks. In addition to and to better utilize qualified volunteers crossbow and gun, with the exception of continuing mandated activities for in support of Holla Bend NWR’s a small tract adjacent to the Levee Trail. protection of federally listed species, we mission and objectives. In addition to Turkeys, rabbits, squirrels, coyotes, would develop a strategy to address the park ranger, the staff would increase beavers, raccoons, and bobcats would these threatened and endangered by the addition of an operations also be allowed to be taken incidental to species, as well as State-listed rare specialist and a heavy equipment deer hunting, and on certain designated species. We would develop a database mechanic. One function of the park days there would be special hunts for and monitor deer herd status, trends in ranger would be to develop a plan for raccoons and turkeys. Sport fishing wild turkey populations, and the recruiting and effectively managing would be permitted in all refuge waters presence of waterbird rookeries. Data on volunteer support. from March 1 to October 31 each year. nuisance wildlife would be collected This alternative would include The refuge would be closed to fishing and aggressive control measures construction of fishing piers at both during the winter months to limit initiated. Long Lake and Lodge Lake to be disturbance of wintering waterfowl Habitat management would include accessible by disabled individuals; (except for bank fishing on Long Lake converting 125 acres from agricultural development of a bird observation trail from November 1 to February 28). production to grassland and scrub/shrub north of the refuge office; improvements Under this alternative, we would habitat. By utilizing force account to the Lodge Lake Trail and the loop to pursue opportunities that arise to farming, the cropland acreage on the the Levee Trail; and vegetation purchase or exchange priority tracts refuge would be reduced by 25 percent management along refuge roads to within the refuge acquisition boundary, and crops would be converted to improve wildlife viewing opportunities. which include 1,703 acres in private preferred waterfowl foods. We would Information kiosks, direction signs, ownership distributed in numerous also aggressively monitor non-native parking lots, and other visitor use small tracts around the perimeter of the plants and implement a plan to facilities would be improved. Under this refuge. eliminate them. Enhancements in the alternative, we would determine the We would not have a dedicated park management of moist-soil habitat would maximum number of archery hunters ranger (visitor services), but staff would include developing complete water that refuge resources could support, and continue to provide environmental control capability on all moist-soil acres we would open a dove hunting season. education services to the public, and using periodic disturbance to set We would pursue opportunities to including limited visits to schools, back succession. Further, we would purchase or exchange tracts within the environmental education workshops, pursue cooperative projects to improve refuge acquisition boundary that would and on-site and off-site environmental habitat quality on about 500 acres of enhance the public use program. education programs. We would open water. Waterfowl usage and Alternative D—Balanced Enhancement continue to maintain exhibits in the shorebird response to habitat of Management for Habitat, Fish and visitor center, a kiosk outside the visitor management would be monitored. Wildlife Populations, and Wildlife- center, and one on the Woodpecker Under this alternative, we would Dependent Public Uses (Proposed Interpretive Trail. pursue opportunities to purchase or Alternative) We would continue to offer exchange tracts within the refuge opportunities for wildlife observation acquisition boundary that would This adaptive management alternative and photography throughout the refuge, enhance fish and wildlife management. is basically concurrent implementation accessible along the refuge road system The staff would increase by the addition of selected enhancements under from March 16 to November 14, but of a biologist, biological science Alternatives B and C, which would with the addition of a wildlife technician, and park ranger (law result in greater benefits to the refuge observation deck next to the visitor enforcement). Wildlife-dependent and the surrounding area. For example, center. We would maintain a staff of 4, recreation activities would be the same the baseline biological information including the refuge manager, office as under Alternative A. developed under Alternative B would assistant, maintenance mechanic, and be useful in identifying opportunities to equipment operator. We would Alternative C—Enhanced Management improve visitor experiences, and the maintain the refuge headquarters, visitor for Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses increased volunteer support center, maintenance building and yard, This alternative represents an management developed under roads, gates, and equipment such as increased focus on wildlife-dependent Alternative C would lead to increased road grader, tractors, dozers, and public uses, rather than more emphasis efficiencies in collecting data on backhoe. on management of fish and wildlife biological resources and responses (e.g., populations and habitat as described nuisance and invasive species Alternative B—Enhanced Management under Alternative B. In addition to the occurrence, deer herd status, and of Habitat and Fish and Wildlife activities described under Alternative A, evaluation of habitat management Populations we would increase wildlife-dependent efforts) identified under Alternative B. Alternative B reflects an increase in recreation activities (e.g., hunting, Habitat management would include management of habitat and fish and fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife converting 100 acres from agricultural wildlife populations. In addition to the photography, and environmental production to grassland and scrub/shrub activities described under Alternative A, education and interpretation). habitat; cooperative farming would we would develop baseline inventories The two most significant continue on 1,200 acres. To the extent of biota and habitat potential, including enhancements under this alternative possible, crops would be converted to inventories of forest conditions, aquatic would be the development of an preferred waterfowl foods. We would species, and suitable woodcock habitat. environmental education center and the monitor non-native plants and develop We would broaden our focus on addition of a park ranger (visitor a strategy to eliminate them. migratory waterfowl to include services) to the staff. These Enhancements in the management of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1075

moist-soil habitat would include Public Availability of Comments ALABAMA developing complete water control Before including your address, phone Russell County capability on all moist-soil acres and number, e-mail address, or other Hurtsboro Historic District, 308–905 Church use of periodic disturbance to set back personal identifying information in your St., 508 Daniel St., 303–407 Dickinson St., succession. Further, the Service would comment, you should be aware that 302–802 Goolsby St., 402–502 Lloyd St., pursue cooperative projects to improve your entire comment—including your 242–282 Long St., Hurtsboro, 09000001, habitat quality on 500 acres of open personal identifying information—may LISTED, 10/19/09 water. Waterfowl usage and shorebird be made publicly available at any time. FLORIDA response to habitat management would While you can ask us in your comment Hernando County be monitored. to withhold your personal identifying Spring Lake Community Center, 4184 Spring The two significant enhancements in information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to Lake Hwy., Brooksville vicinity, 09000843, the public use program would be LISTED, 10/20/09 (Florida’s New Deal development of an environmental do so. Resources MPS) education center on the refuge and the Authority FLORIDA addition of a park ranger (visitor This notice is published under the services) to the staff. These Orange County authority of the National Wildlife enhancements would greatly increase Rosemere Historic District, Roughly by E. Refuge System Improvement Act of our capability and opportunity to Harvard St., N. Orange Ave., Cornell Ave. 1997, Public Law 105–57. conduct environmental education and & E. Vanderbilt St., Orlando, 09000844, interpretation programs, and to better Dated: October 15, 2009. LISTED, 10/21/09 utilize qualified volunteers in support of Jacquelyn B. Parrish, GEORGIA Acting Regional Director. Holla Bend NWR’s mission and Muscogee County objectives. One responsibility of the [FR Doc. 2010–101 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Thomas, Alma, House, 411 21st St., park ranger would be to develop a plan BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Columbus, 09000270, LISTED, 10/20/09 for recruiting and effectively managing volunteer support. Wildlife-dependent NEVADA recreation activities would be the same DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Clark County as under Alternative A. National Park Service Berkley Square, Area bounded by Byrnes This alternative would include the Ave., D St., Leonard Ave., and G St., Las construction of a fishing pier at Lodge National Register of Historic Places; Vegas, 09000846, LISTED, 10/23/09 Lake to be accessible by disabled Weekly Listing of Historic Properties NEW YORK individuals; development of a bird Pursuant to (36 CFR 60.13(b,c)) and Chenango County observation trail north of the refuge (36 CFR 63.5), this notice, through office; improvements to the Lodge Lake Mathewson, Holden B., House, 1567 NY 26, publication of the information included South Otselic, 09000860, LISTED, 10/23/09 Trail and the loop to the Levee Trail; herein, is to apprise the public as well NEW YORK and selective vegetation management as governmental agencies, associations along refuge roads to improve wildlife and all other organizations and Columbia County viewing opportunities. Information individuals interested in historic Van Rensselaer, Conyn, House, 644 Spook kiosks, direction signs, parking lots, and preservation, of the properties added to, Rock Rd., Claverack vicinity, 09000861, other visitor use facilities also would be or determined eligible for listing in, the LISTED, 10/20/09 improved to the extent feasible. We National Register of Historic Places from NEW YORK would determine the maximum number October 19 to October 23, and on of archery hunters that refuge resources December 30, 2009. Dutchess County could support, and we would evaluate For further information, please Mt. Beacon Fire Observation Tower, S. the feasibility of adding a dove season. contact Edson Beall via: United States Beacon Mtn., Beacon vicinity, 09000862, We would pursue opportunities to Postal Service mail, at the National LISTED, 10/23/09 purchase or exchange priority tracts Register of Historic Places, 2280, NEW YORK National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., within the refuge acquisition boundary, Onondaga County which includes 1,703 acres in private Washington, DC 20240; in person (by appointment), 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th Barber, Peale’s, Farm Mastodon Exhumation ownership distributed in numerous Site, Rt. 17K, Montgomery vicinity, small tracts around the perimeter of the Floor, Washington, DC 20005; by fax, 09000863, LISTED, 10/20/09 refuge. 202–371–2229; by phone, 202–354– 2255; or by e-mail, NORTH CAROLINA The staff would include a refuge [email protected]. manager, deputy refuge manager, heavy Dare County equipment operator, and office assistant, Dated: January 4, 2010. Midgett, Rasmus, House, 25438 NC Hwy 12, and would be increased to also include J. Paul Loether, Waves, 09000847, LISTED, 10/21/09 a biologist and biological science Chief, National Register of Historic Places/ OHIO technician, a park ranger (visitor National Historic Landmarks Program. Erie County services), a park ranger (law KEY: State, County, Property Name, Address/ enforcement), an operations specialist, Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Feick Building, 158–160 E. Market St., and a heavy equipment mechanic. Number, Action, Date, Multiple Name Sandusky, 09000848, LISTED, 10/22/09 AMERICAN SAMOA OHIO Next Step Western District Geauga County After the comment period ends, we Kirwan, Michael J., Educational Television ASM Headquarters and Geodesic Dome, 9639 will analyze the comments and address Center, Route 118, N. side of Utulei, Utulei Kinsman Rd., Materials Park, 09000849, them. vicinity, 09000842, LISTED, 10/23/09 LISTED, 10/22/09

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

WEST VIRGINIA The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA Management proposes to extend the Logan County 90) (Pub. L. 101–380) expanded and duration of Public Land Order (PLO) strengthened MMS’s authority to No. 6797 for an additional 20-year term. Blair Mountain Battlefield, Address Restricted, Logan vicinity, 08000496, impose penalties for violating PLO No. 6797 withdrew 9,609.74 acres REMOVED/DETERMINED ELIGIBLE, regulations promulgated under the OCS of public mineral estate from location or 12/30/09 Lands Act. Section 8201 of OPA 90, entry under the United States mining which amended section 24(b) of the laws (30 U.S.C. Ch.2), to protect the WISCONSIN OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1350(b), Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Jefferson County directs the Secretary of the Interior to Winter Range in Fremont County. This North Washington Street Historic District, N. adjust the maximum civil penalty notice also gives an opportunity to Church St. generally bounded by amount at least once every 3 years to comment on the proposed action and to O’Connell and N. Green St., N. Washington reflect any increases in the Consumer request a public meeting. St. bounded by O’Connell and Elm Sts., Price Index (CPI). The purpose of this Watertown, 09000850, LISTED, 10/23/09 DATES: Comments and requests for a adjustment is to ensure that punitive public meeting must be received by WISCONSIN assessments keep up with inflation. If April 8, 2010. an adjustment is necessary, MMS Milwaukee County ADDRESSES: Comments and meeting informs the public through publication Pittsburgh Plate Glass Enamel Plant, 201 E. requests should be sent to the BLM in the Federal Register of the new Pittsburgh Ave., Milwaukee, 09000851, Wyoming State Director, P.O. Box 1828, maximum amount. The MMS uses LISTED, 10/21/09 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003–1828. [FR Doc. 2010–49 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Office of Management and Budget FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE P (OMB) guidelines for determining how penalty amounts should be rounded. Janelle Wrigley, BLM Wyoming State The MMS published regulations Office, 307–775–6257, or at the above DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR adjusting the civil penalty assessment to address. $25,000 per violation per day on August SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Minerals Management Service 8, 1997 (62 FR 42667); to $30,000 on withdrawal created by PLO No. 6797 (55 October 29, 2003 (68 FR 61622); and to FR 37878 (1990)) will expire September Outer Continental Shelf Civil Penalties $35,000 on February 28, 2007 (72 FR 13, 2010, unless extended. PLO No. AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 8897). In August 2009, MMS performed 6797 is incorporated herein by (MMS), Interior. computations to determine if it should reference. The BLM has filed a petition/ ACTION: Notice summarizing review of increase the current maximum civil application to extend PLO No. 6797 for the maximum daily civil penalty penalty amount of $35,000 per violation an additional 20-year term. The assessment. per day. After running the withdrawal was made to protect the computations, the MMS determined that bighorn sheep winter range and capital SUMMARY: The Outer Continental Shelf the CPI did not increase enough to investments on the land described in Lands Act requires the MMS to review warrant raising the maximum civil the PLO at 55 FR 37878 (1990). The area the maximum daily civil penalty penalty amount at this time. The MMS aggregates 9,609.74 acres in Fremont assessment for violations of regulations will monitor the CPI, and when the County, Wyoming. governing oil and gas operations in the computations justify raising the The purpose of the proposed Outer Continental Shelf at least once maximum civil penalty amount, the extension is to continue the withdrawal every 3 years. This review ensures that MMS will publish a Notice in the created by PLO No. 6797 for an the maximum penalty assessment Federal Register to notify the public of additional 20-year term to protect the reflects any increases in the Consumer the increase. Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Price Index as prepared by the Bureau Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1350. Winter Range and capital investments in of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of the area. Dated: January 4, 2010. Labor. After conducting the required The use of a right-of-way, interagency, review in August 2009, the MMS Chris Oynes, or cooperative agreement would not determined that no adjustment is Associate Director for Offshore Energy and adequately constrain nondiscretionary necessary at this time. Minerals Management. uses which could result in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 2010–119 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] permanent loss of significant values and Joanne McCammon, Safety and BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P irreplaceable resources of the range. Enforcement Branch at (703) 787–1292 There are no suitable alternative sites or e-mail at since the lands described herein contain DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [email protected]. the area that has historically been used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The goal Bureau of Land Management as bighorn sheep winter range, due to its of the MMS Outer Continental Shelf physical characteristics, and because of (OCS) Civil Penalty Program is to ensure [LLWY–920000–L143000000–ET0000; WYW the local weather conditions. safe and clean operations on the OCS. 109115] No water rights would be needed to By assessing and collecting civil Notice of Proposed Withdrawal fulfill the purpose of the requested penalties, the program is designed to Extension and Opportunity for Public withdrawal extension. encourage compliance with OCS Meeting; WY Records relating to the application statutes and regulations. Not all may be examined by contacting Janelle regulatory violations warrant a review to AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Wrigley at the above address or by initiate civil penalty proceedings; Interior. phone at 307–775–6257 or by contacting however, violations that cause injury, ACTION: Notice. the BLM Field Manager, Lander Field death, or environmental damage, or Office, 1335 Main Street, Lander, pose a threat to human life or the SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of the Wyoming 82520 or by phone at 307– environment, will trigger such review. Interior—Land and Minerals 332–8400.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1077

For a period of 90 days from the date SUMMARY: The United States Department There are no suitable alternative sites of publication of this notice, all persons of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service available that could be substituted for who wish to submit comments, has filed an application with the Bureau the above described public land, since suggestions, or objections in connection of Land Management (BLM) that the Kenai River Recreation Area, the with the proposed extension may proposes to extend the duration of Russian River Campground Area, and present their views in writing to the Public Land Order (PLO) No. 6884 for the Lower Russian Lake Recreation Area BLM Wyoming State Director at the an additional 20-year period. This order are unique. address noted above. Comments, withdrew approximately 1,855 acres of No water rights would be needed to including names and street addresses of National Forest System land from fulfill the purpose of the requested respondents, will be available for public surface entry and mining—but not from withdrawal extension. review at the BLM Lander Field Office, mineral leasing laws—to protect the Records relating to the application 1335 Main Street, Lander, Wyoming, recreational values of the Kenai River may be found by contacting Ramona during regular business hours 8 a.m. to Recreation Area, the Russian River Chinn, BLM Alaska State Office at the 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Campground Area, and the Lower address above. except holidays. Before including your Russian Lake Recreation Area. This For a period of 90 days from the date address, phone number, e-mail address, notice gives an opportunity to comment of publication of this notice, all persons or other personal identifying on the proposed action and to request a who wish to submit comments, information in your comment, you public meeting. suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension should be aware that your entire DATES: Comments and requests for a comment—including your personal may present their views in writing to public meeting must be received by the BLM Alaska State Director at the identifying information—may be made April 8, 2010. publicly available at any time. While address indicated above. Before ADDRESSES: Comments and meeting you can ask us in your comment to including your address, phone number, requests should be sent to the Alaska withhold your personal identifying e-mail address, or other personal State Director, BLM Alaska State Office, identifying information in your information from public review, we 222 West 7th Avenue, No. 13, comment, you should be aware that cannot guarantee that we will be able to Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7504. your entire comment—including your do so. Notice is hereby given that one or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: personal identifying information—may more public meetings will be held in Ramona Chinn, BLM Alaska State be made publicly available at any time. connection with the proposed Office, 907–271–3806 or at the address While you can ask us in your comment withdrawal extension. All interested above. to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we persons who desire a public meeting for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The cannot guarantee that we will be able to the purpose of being heard on the withdrawal, created by PLO No. 6884 do so. Individual respondents may proposed extension must submit a (56 FR 49847, (1991)), will expire on request confidentiality. If you wish to written request to the BLM Wyoming October 1, 2011, unless extended. The withhold your name or address from State Director within 90 days from the USDA Forest Service has filed an public review or from disclosure under date of publication of this notice. A application to extend the withdrawal for the Freedom of Information Act, you notice of the time and place of any an additional 20-year period to protect must state this prominently at the public meetings will be published in the the recreational values of the Kenai beginning of your comments. Such Federal Register and at least one local River Recreation Area, the Russian River requests will be honored to the extent newspaper at least 30 days before the Campground Area, and the Lower allowed by law. All submissions from scheduled date of the meeting. Russian Lake Recreation Area. organizations or businesses, and from This withdrawal extension petition/ This withdrawal comprises individuals identifying themselves as application will be processed in approximately 1,855 acres of National representatives or officials of accordance with the regulations set Forest System land located in the organizations or businesses, will be forth in 43 CFR 2310.4. Chugach National Forest, within Tps. 4 made available for public inspection in (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3–1) and 5 N., R. 4 W., Seward Meridian, as their entirety. described in PLO No. 6884, as corrected Notice is hereby given that an Michael Madrid, (56 FR 56275 (1991)). opportunity for a public meeting is Chief, Branch of Fluid Mineral Operations, A complete description, along with all afforded in connection with the Lands and Appraisal. other records pertaining to the extension proposed withdrawal extension. All [FR Doc. 2010–93 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] application, can be examined in the interested parties who desire a public BILLING CODE 4310–22–P BLM Alaska State Office at the address meeting for the purpose of being heard shown above. on the proposed withdrawal must As extended, the withdrawal would submit a written request to the BLM DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR not alter the applicability of those Alaska State Director within 90 days public land laws governing the use of from the date of publication of this Bureau of Land Management land under lease, license, or permit or notice. Upon determination by the [AK–963–1410–ET; AA–5964, AA–3060, AA– governing the disposal of the mineral or authorized officer that a public meeting 5934] vegetative resources other than under will be held, a notice of the time and the mining laws. place will be published in the Federal Notice of Proposed Withdrawal The use of a right-of-way or Register and in at least one local Extension and Opportunity for Public interagency or cooperative agreement newspaper no less than 30 days before Meeting; AK would not adequately protect the the scheduled date of the meeting. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, recreational values of the Kenai River The withdrawal extension proposal Interior. Recreation Area, the Russian River will be processed in accordance with Campground Area, and the Lower the regulations set forth in 43 CFR ACTION: Notice. Russian Lake Recreation Area. 2310.4 and subject to Section 810 of the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Alaska National Interest Lands Investigations, U.S. International Trade (3) The Domestic Like Product is the Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3120. Commission, 500 E Street SW., domestically produced product or Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3–1(b). Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- products which are like, or in the impaired persons can obtain absence of like, most similar in Ramona Chinn, information on this matter by contacting characteristics and uses with, the Deputy State Director, Division of Alaska the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– Subject Merchandise. In its original Lands. 205–1810. Persons with mobility affirmative determinations, the [FR Doc. 2010–94 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] impairments who will need special Commission defined the Domestic Like BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P assistance in gaining access to the Product to consist of fresh warmwater Commission should contact the Office shrimp and prawns and those frozen of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. warmwater shrimp and prawn products INTERNATIONAL TRADE General information concerning the defined in Commerce’s scope definition. COMMISSION Commission may also be obtained by Certain Commissioners defined the [Investigation No. 731–TA–1063, 1064, accessing its internet server (http:// Domestic Like Product differently. 1066–1068 (Review)] www.usitc.gov). The public record for (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. these reviews may be viewed on the producers as a whole of the Domestic Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) Like Product, or those producers whose Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and at http://edis.usitc.gov. collective output of the Domestic Like Vietnam SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Product constitutes a major proportion Background. On February 1, 2005, the of the total domestic production of the AGENCY: United States International product. In its original affirmative Trade Commission. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping duty orders on determinations, the Commission ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews imports of frozen warmwater shrimp defined the Domestic Industry to consist concerning the antidumping duty orders from Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and of: (1) All entities that harvest fresh on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (70 FR 5143–5156).2 The warmwater shrimp (i.e., fishermen and Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and shrimp farmers) and (2) all processors of Vietnam. Commission is conducting reviews to determine whether revocation of the frozen shrimp products within the SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives orders would be likely to lead to scope definition except for firms that do notice that it has instituted reviews continuation or recurrence of material not engage in sufficient production- pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff injury to the domestic industry within related activities to be considered Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) a reasonably foreseeable time. It will domestic producers.3 In addition several to determine whether revocation of the assess the adequacy of interested party producers were excluded by the antidumping duty orders on frozen responses to this notice of institution to Commission from the Domestic Industry warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, determine whether to conduct full pursuant to the related parties India, Thailand, and Vietnam would be reviews or expedited reviews. The provision. likely to lead to continuation or Commission’s determinations in any (5) The Order Date is the date that the recurrence of material injury. Pursuant expedited reviews will be based on the antidumping duty orders under review to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested facts available, which may include became effective. In these reviews, the parties are requested to respond to this information provided in response to this Order Date is February 1, 2005. notice by submitting the information notice. (6) An Importer is any person or firm specified below to the Commission; 1 to Definitions. The following definitions engaged, either directly or through a be assured of consideration, the apply to these reviews: parent company or subsidiary, in deadline for responses is February 3, (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or importing the Subject Merchandise into 2010. Comments on the adequacy of kind of merchandise that is within the the United States from a foreign responses may be filed with the scope of the five-year reviews, as manufacturer or through its selling Commission by March 19, 2010. For defined by the Department of agent. further information concerning the Commerce. Participation in the reviews and conduct of these reviews and rules of (2) The Subject Countries in these public service list. Persons, including general application, consult the reviews are Brazil, China, India, industrial users of the Subject Commission’s Rules of Practice and Thailand, and Vietnam. Merchandise and, if the merchandise is Procedure, part 201, subparts A through sold at the retail level, representative E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 2 Commerce has subsequently revoked the consumer organizations, wishing to subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part antidumping duty order on imports of frozen participate in the reviews as parties 207), as most recently amended at 74 FR warmwater shrimp from Thailand with respect to must file an entry of appearance with certain manufacturer/exporters. 74 FR 5638 the Secretary to the Commission, as 2847 (January 16, 2009). (January 30, 2009). On February 1, 2005, Commerce DATES: Effective Date: January 4, 2010. also issued an antidumping duty order on imports provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. Commission’s rules, no later than 21 Commerce subsequently revoked that order. 72 FR Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of days after publication of this notice in 48257 (August 23, 2007). the Federal Register. The Secretary will On May 5, 2005, the Commission instituted 1 No response to this request for information is changed circumstances reviews pursuant to section maintain a public service list containing required if a currently valid Office of Management 751(b) of the Act concerning its affirmative and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the determinations on frozen warmwater shrimp from 3 The Commission found that processing OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–209, India and Thailand. 70 FR 23384 (May 5, 2005). In activities such as deheading, grading, machine expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting the changed circumstances reviews, it determined peeling, deveining, and cooking all constitute burden for the request is estimated to average 15 that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on domestic production but that marinating and hours per response. Please send comments subject imports from India and Thailand would be skewering do not constitute domestic production. regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of The Commission also concluded that breading did the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade material injury to an industry in the United States not constitute domestic production activity because Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC within a reasonably foreseeable time. 70 FR 71557 breaded shrimp was not part of the Domestic Like 20436. (November 29, 2005). Product.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1079

the names and addresses of all persons, investigations relating to the programs Merchandise in more than one Subject or their representatives, who are parties and operations of the Commission Country, you may file a single response. to the reviews. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. If you do so, please ensure that your Former Commission employees who Written submissions. Pursuant to response to each question includes the are seeking to appear in Commission section 207.61 of the Commission’s information requested for each pertinent five-year reviews are advised that they rules, each interested party response to Subject Country. As used below, the may appear in a review even if they this notice must provide the information term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. participated personally and specified below. The deadline for filing (1) The name and address of your firm substantially in the corresponding such responses is February 3, 2010. or entity (including World Wide Web underlying original investigation. The Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the address) and name, telephone number, Commission’s designated agency ethics Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as fax number, and E-mail address of the official has advised that a five-year specified in Commission rule certifying official. review is not considered the ‘‘same 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments (2) A statement indicating whether particular matter’’ as the corresponding concerning the adequacy of responses to your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of underlying original investigation for the notice of institution and whether the the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post Commission should conduct expedited or worker group, a U.S. importer of the employment statute for Federal or full reviews. The deadline for filing Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer employees, and Commission rule such comments is March 19, 2010. All or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR written submissions must conform with a U.S. or foreign trade or business 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was the provisions of sections 201.8 and association, or another interested party developed in consultation with the 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any (including an explanation). If you are a Office of Government Ethics. submissions that contain BPI must also union/worker group or trade/business Consequently, former employees are not conform with the requirements of association, identify the firms in which required to seek Commission approval sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the your workers are employed or which are to appear in a review under Commission Commission’s rules. The Commission’s members of your association. rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the rules do not authorize filing of (3) A statement indicating whether corresponding underlying original submissions with the Secretary by your firm/entity is willing to participate investigation was pending when they facsimile or electronic means, except to in these reviews by providing were Commission employees. For the extent permitted by section 201.8 of information requested by the further ethics advice on this matter, the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 Commission. contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in (4) A statement of the likely effects of Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– accordance with sections 201.16(c) and the revocation of the antidumping duty 3088. 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each orders on the Domestic Industry in Limited disclosure of business document filed by a party to the reviews general and/or your firm/entity proprietary information (BPI) under an must be served on all other parties to specifically. In your response, please administrative protective order (APO) the reviews (as identified by either the discuss the various factors specified in and APO service list. Pursuant to public or APO service list as section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s appropriate), and a certificate of service 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of rules, the Secretary will make BPI must accompany the document (if you subject imports, likely price effects of submitted in these reviews available to are not a party to the reviews you do not subject imports, and likely impact of authorized applicants under the APO need to serve your response). imports of Subject Merchandise on the issued in the reviews, provided that the Inability to provide requested Domestic Industry. application is made no later than 21 information. Pursuant to section (5) A list of all known and currently days after publication of this notice in 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any operating U.S. producers of the the Federal Register. Authorized interested party that cannot furnish the Domestic Like Product. Identify any applicants must represent interested information requested by this notice in known related parties and the nature of parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), the requested form and manner shall the relationship as defined in section who are parties to the reviews. A notify the Commission at the earliest 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. separate service list will be maintained possible time, provide a full explanation 1677(4)(B)). by the Secretary for those parties of why it cannot provide the requested (6) A list of all known and currently authorized to receive BPI under the information, and indicate alternative operating U.S. importers of the Subject APO. forms in which it can provide Merchandise and producers of the Certification. Pursuant to section equivalent information. If an interested Subject Merchandise in each Subject 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any party does not provide this notification Country that currently export or have person submitting information to the (or the Commission finds the exported Subject Merchandise to the Commission in connection with these explanation provided in the notification United States or other countries since reviews must certify that the inadequate) and fails to provide a the Order Date. information is accurate and complete to complete response to this notice, the (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In Commission may take an adverse the U.S. market for the Domestic Like making the certification, the submitter inference against the party pursuant to Product and the Subject Merchandise will be deemed to consent, unless section 776(b) of the Act in making its that are not themselves members of the otherwise specified, for the determinations in the reviews. Domestic Industry (including street Commission, its employees, and Information To Be Provided in address, World Wide Web address, and contract personnel to use the Response to this Notice of Institution: If the name, telephone number, fax information provided in any other you are a domestic producer, union/ number, and E-mail address of a reviews or investigations of the same or worker group, or trade/business responsible official at each firm). comparable products which the association; import/export Subject (8) A list of known sources of Commission conducts under Title VII of Merchandise from more than one information on national or regional the Act, or in internal audits and Subject Country; or produce Subject prices for the Domestic Like Product or

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or the firms which are members of your reasonably foreseeable time. Supply other markets. association. conditions to consider include (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the (a) The quantity and value (landed, technology; production methods; Domestic Like Product, provide the duty-paid but not including development efforts; ability to increase following information on your firm’s antidumping duties) of U.S. imports production (including the shift of operations on that product during and, if known, an estimate of the production facilities used for other calendar year 2009, except as noted percentage of total U.S. imports of products and the use, cost, or (report quantity data in pounds and Subject Merchandise from each Subject availability of major inputs into value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production); and factors related to the If you are a union/worker group or imports; ability to shift supply among different trade/business association, provide the (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. national markets (including barriers to information, on an aggregate basis, for port, including antidumping duties) of importation in foreign markets or the firms in which your workers are U.S. commercial shipments of Subject changes in market demand abroad). employed/which are members of your Merchandise imported from each Demand conditions to consider include association. Subject Country; and end uses and applications; the existence (a) Production (quantity) and, if (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. and availability of substitute products; known, an estimate of the percentage of port, including antidumping duties) of and the level of competition among the total U.S. production of the Domestic U.S. internal consumption/company Domestic Like Product produced in the Like Product accounted for by your transfers of Subject Merchandise United States, Subject Merchandise firm’s(s’) production. If you are a imported from each Subject Country. produced in each Subject Country, and (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, processor, indicate the nature of the such merchandise from other countries. processing activities you perform (e.g., or a trade/business association of (13) (Optional) A statement of deheading, grading, machine peeling, producers or exporters of the Subject whether you agree with the above deveining, cooking, marinating and/or Merchandise in the Subject definitions of the Domestic Like Product skewering); Country(ies), provide the following and Domestic Industry; if you disagree (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to information on your firm’s(s’) with either or both of these definitions, produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., operations on that product during please explain why and provide the level of production that your calendar year 2009 (report quantity data alternative definitions. establishment(s) could reasonably have in pounds and value data in U.S. expected to attain during the year, dollars, landed and duty-paid at the Authority: These reviews are being assuming normal operating conditions U.S. port but not including antidumping conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published (using equipment and machinery in duties). If you are a trade/business pursuant to section 207.61 of the place and ready to operate), normal association, provide the information, on Commission’s rules. operating levels (hours per week/weeks an aggregate basis, for the firms which per year), time for downtime, are members of your association. Issued: January 4, 2010. maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a (a) Production (quantity) and, if By order of the Commission. typical or representative product mix); known, an estimate of the percentage of Marilyn R. Abbott, (c) the quantity and value of U.S. total production of Subject Merchandise Secretary to the Commission. commercial shipments of the Domestic in each Subject Country accounted for [FR Doc. 2010–88 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Like Product produced in your U.S. by your firm’s(s’) production; BILLING CODE 7020–02–P production facility(ies); (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to (d) the quantity and value of U.S. produce the Subject Merchandise in internal consumption/company each Subject Country (i.e., the level of INTERNATIONAL TRADE transfers of the Domestic Like Product production that your establishment(s) COMMISSION produced in your U.S. production could reasonably have expected to [Investigation No. 337–TA–657] facility(ies); and attain during the year, assuming normal (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost operating conditions (using equipment Certain Automotive Multimedia Display of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, and machinery in place and ready to and Navigation Systems, Components (iv) selling, general and administrative operate), normal operating levels (hours Thereof, and Products Containing (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating per week/weeks per year), time for Same; Notice of Commission income of the Domestic Like Product downtime, maintenance, repair, and Determination To Grant the Joint produced in your U.S. production cleanup, and a typical or representative Motion To Terminate the Investigation facility(ies) (include both U.S. and product mix); and on the Basis of Settlement export commercial sales, internal (c) the quantity and value of your consumption, and company transfers) firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of AGENCY: U.S. International Trade for your most recently completed fiscal Subject Merchandise and, if known, an Commission. year (identify the date on which your estimate of the percentage of total ACTION: Notice. fiscal year ends). exports to the United States of Subject (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a Merchandise from each Subject Country SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that trade/business association of U.S. accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. the U.S. International Trade importers of the Subject Merchandise (12) Identify significant changes, if Commission has determined to grant the from the Subject Country(ies), provide any, in the supply and demand joint motion to terminate the above- the following information on your conditions or business cycle for the captioned investigation based upon firm’s(s’) operations on that product Domestic Like Product that have settlement. during calendar year 2009 (report occurred in the United States or in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quantity data in pounds and value data market for the Subject Merchandise in Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ each Subject Country since the Order the General Counsel, U.S. International business association, provide the Date, and significant changes, if any, Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., information, on an aggregate basis, for that are likely to occur within a Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1081

708–2532. Copies of non-confidential 337 by Pioneer. On November 23, 2009, obtain comments from the public and documents filed in connection with this the Commission determined, upon affected agencies. Comments are investigation are or will be available for Honeywell’s motion and Pioneer’s encouraged and will be accepted for 60 inspection during official business contingent motion, to review in part the days until March 9, 2010. This process hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the ID. 74 FR 62589 (Nov. 30, 2009). On is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR Office of the Secretary, U.S. November 30, 2009, Honeywell and 1320.10. International Trade Commission, 500 E Pioneer moved the Commission to Written comments and/or suggestions Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, extend the briefing deadlines because regarding the item(s) contained in this telephone (202) 205–2000. General the parties were engaged in settlement notice, especially regarding the information concerning the Commission discussions. The Commission granted estimated public burden and associated may also be obtained by accessing its that motion, extending briefing for response time, should be directed to the Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). approximately three weeks. 74 FR 64100 Office of Management and Budget, The public record for this investigation (Dec. 7, 2009). Office of Information and Regulatory may be viewed on the Commission’s On December 22, 2009, Honeywell Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// and Pioneer filed their Joint Motion to Desk Officer, Washington, DC, 20530. edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired Terminate Investigation as to Additionally, comments may be persons are advised that information on Respondents Pioneer Corporation and submitted to OMB via facsimile to 202– this matter can be obtained by Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. Based 395–7285. Comments may also be contacting the Commission’s TDD Upon Settlement Agreement. On submitted to the Department Clearance terminal on (202) 205–1810. December 24, 2009, the Commission Officer, United States Department of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The investigative attorney filed a response Justice, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Commission instituted Investigation No. that recommended that the Commission Washington, DC 20530. 337–TA–657 on September 22, 2008, grant the motion. Written comments and suggestions based on a complaint filed by Having examined the record of this from the public and affected agencies Honeywell International Inc. of investigation, the Commission has concerning the proposed collection of Morristown, New Jersey (‘‘Honeywell’’). determined to grant the joint motion to information are encouraged. Your 73 FR 54617 (Sept. 22, 2008). The terminate the investigation. comments should address one or more complainant named the following The authority for the Commission’s of the following four points: respondents: Alpine Electronics, Inc. of determination is contained in section (1) Evaluate whether the proposed Japan, and Alpine Electronics of 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as collection of information is necessary America, Inc. of Torrance, California amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in for the proper performance of the (collectively ‘‘Alpine’’); Denso section 210.21 of the Commission’s functions of the agency, including Corporation of Japan, and Denso Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR whether the information will have International America, Inc. of 210.21). practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Southfield, Michigan (collectively Issued: January 4, 2010. agencies estimate of the burden of the ‘‘Denso’’); Pioneer Corporation of Japan By order of the Commission. proposed collection of information, and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Marilyn R. Abbott, including the validity of the Long Beach, California (collectively Secretary to the Commission. methodology and assumptions used; ‘‘ ’’ Pioneer ); and Kenwood Corporation of [FR Doc. 2010–89 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Japan and Kenwood USA Corporation of BILLING CODE 7020–02–P clarity of the information to be Long Beach, California (collectively collected; and ‘‘Kenwood’’). The complaint alleged (4) Minimize the burden of the violations of Section 337 of the Tariff DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE collection of information on those who Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the are to respond, including through the [OMB Number 1105–0030] importation, sale for importation, and use of appropriate automated, sale within the United States after electronic, mechanical, or other importation of certain automotive Justice Management Division; Office of Attorney Recruitment and technological collection techniques or multimedia display and navigation other forms of information technology, systems, components thereof, and Management; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed e.g., permitting electronic submission of products containing the same that responses. infringe certain claims of certain Renewal of Previously Approved Collection; Comments Requested Overview of this information Honeywell patents. Honeywell settled collection: its disputes with Kenwood, Denso, and ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information (1) Type of information collection: Alpine, and the Administrative Law Collection Under Review: Electronic Revision of a Currently Approved Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) terminated the Applications for the Attorney General’s Collection. investigation with regard to those Honors Program and the Summer Law (2) The title of the form/collection: respondents. The Commission Intern Program. Electronic Applications for the Attorney determined not to review any of these General’s Honors Program and the initial determinations. Pioneer remained The Department of Justice (DOJ), Summer Law Intern Program. as the sole respondent, and its products Justice Management Division, Office of (3) The agency form number, if any, accused of infringement include factory- Attorney Recruitment and Management and the applicable component of the installed GPS units in certain (OARM), will be submitting the department sponsoring the collection: automobiles and certain after-market following information collection request Form Number: none. Office of Attorney ‘‘head-unit’’ GPS devices that are to the Office of Management and Budget Recruitment and Management, Justice mounted in automobile dashboards. (OMB) for review and approval in Management Division, U.S. Department On September 22, 2009, the ALJ accordance with the Paperwork of Justice. issued his final Initial Determination Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed (4) Affected public who will be asked (‘‘ID’’), finding no violation of section information collection is published to or required to respond, as well as a brief

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

abstract: Primary: Individuals or DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Overview of this Information Collection households. Other: None. The (1) Type of Information Collection: application form is submitted [OMB Number 1190–0001] Extension of a currently approved voluntarily, once a year by law students collection. and judicial law clerks who will be in Civil Rights Division; Agency (2) Title of the Form/Collection: this applicant pool only once; the Information Collection Activities: Procedures for the Administration of revision to this collection concerns two Proposed Collection; Comments Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of additional forms required to be Requested 1965. submitted only by those applicants who (3) Agency form number: None. were selected to be interviewed by DOJ ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information (4) Affected public who will be asked components. Both of these forms seek Collection Under Review: Procedures or required to respond, as well as a brief information in order to prepare both the for the Administration of Section 5 of abstract: Primary: State or Local or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Tribal Government. Other: None. official Travel Authorizations prior to Abstract: Jurisdictions specially covered the interviewees’ performing pre- The Department of Justice (DOJ), CRT under the Voting Rights Act are required employment interview travel (as defined will be submitting the following to comply with Section 5 of the Act by 41 CFR 301–1.3), and the official information collection request to the before they may implement any change Travel Vouchers after the travel is Office of Management and Budget in a standard, practice, or procedure completed. The first new form is the (OMB) for review and approval in affecting voting. One option for such Travel Survey—used by the Department accordance with the Paperwork compliance is to submit that change to in scheduling travel and/or hotel Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed Attorney General for review and accommodations, which in turn information collection is published to establish that the proposed voting provides the estimated travel costs obtain comments from the public and changes are not racially discriminatory. required by the Travel Authorization affected agencies. Comments are The procedures facilitate the provision form. The second new form is a simple encouraged and will be accepted for of information that will enable the Reimbursement Form—the interviewees ‘‘sixty days’’ until March 9, 2010. This Attorney General to make the required are asked to provide their travel costs process is conducted in accordance with determination. and/or hotel accommodations (if 5 CFR 1320.10. (5) An estimate of the total number of applicable) in order for the Department If you have comments especially on respondents and the amount of time to prepare the Travel Vouchers required the estimated public burden or estimated for an average respondent to before these interviewees can be associated response time, suggestions, respond: It is estimated that 4,109 respondents will complete each form reimbursed by the Department for the or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with within approximately 10.02 hours. authorized costs they incurred during (6) An estimate of the total public this pre-employment interview travel. instructions or additional information, please contact Robert S. Berman, U.S. burden (in hours) associated with the (5) An estimate of the total number of Department of Justice, Voting Section, collection: There are an estimated respondents and the amount of time Civil Rights Division, 950 Pennsylvania 41,172 total annual burden hours estimated for an average respondent to Avenue, NW., 7243 NWB, Washington, associated with this collection. respond/reply: It is estimated that 5000 DC 20530. If additional information is required respondents will complete the Written comments and suggestions contact: Lynn Bryant, Department application in approximately 1 hour per from the public and affected agencies Clearance Officer, United States application. The revised burden would concerning the proposed collection of Department of Justice, Justice include 600 respondents who will information are encouraged. Your Management Division, Policy and complete the travel survey in comments should address one or more Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, approximately 10 minutes per form, and of the following four points: Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. 600 respondents who will complete the —Evaluate whether the proposed reimbursement form in approximately collection of information is necessary Dated: January 4, 2010. 10 minutes per form. for the proper performance of the Lynn Bryant, (6) An estimate of the total public functions of the agency, including Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. burden (in hours) associated with the whether the information will have practical utility; [FR Doc. 2010–54 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] collection: The estimated revised total annual public burden associated with —Evaluate the accuracy of the BILLING CODE 4410–13–P agency’s estimate of the burden of the this application is 5200 hours. proposed collection of information, If additional information is required including the validity of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE contact Lynn Bryant, Department methodology and assumptions used; Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Clearance Officer, United States —Enhance the quality, utility, and Under the Comprehensive Department of Justice, Justice clarity of the information to be Environmental Response, Management Division, Policy and collected; and Planning Staff, Suite 1600, 601 D Street Compensation, and Liability Act —Minimize the burden of the (‘‘CERCLA’’) NW., Washington, DC 20530. collection of information on those who Dated: January 4, 2010. are to respond, including through the Notice is hereby given that on use of appropriate automated, December 22, 2009 a proposed consent Lynn Bryant, electronic, mechanical, or other decree (‘‘proposed Decree’’) in United Department Clearance Officer, PRA, technological collection techniques or States v. Thoro Products Company, Department of Justice. other forms of information technology, Civil Action No. 04–M–2330, was [FR Doc. 2010–53 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] e.g., permitting electronic submission of lodged with the United States District BILLING CODE 4410–PB–P responses. Court for the District of Colorado.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1083

In this action under Section 107(a) of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE electronic, mechanical, or other the Comprehensive Environmental technological collection techniques or Response, Compensation, and Liability Drug Enforcement Administration other forms of information technology, Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) (‘‘CERCLA’’), the [OMB Number 1117–0038] e.g., permitting electronic submission of United States sought to recover response responses. costs incurred or to be incurred by the Agency Information Collection United States as a result of releases and Overview of Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 1117–0038 threatened releases of hazardous Comments Requested; Reporting and substances from the solvent recycling Recordkeeping for Digital Certificates (1) Type of Information Collection: facility operated by Thoro Products Extension of a currently approved Company located at the Rocky Flats ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information collection. Industrial Park Superfund Site, in Collection Under Review. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Jefferson County, Colorado. The Reporting and recordkeeping for digital proposed Decree requires the defendant The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug certificates. to pay $573,355.54 to the United States Enforcement Administration (DEA) will (3) Agency form number, if any, and in reimbursement of past and future be submitting the following information the applicable component of the response costs, and provides the collection request to the Office of Department of Justice sponsoring the defendant with a covenant not to sue Management and Budget (OMB) for collection: under Sections 106 and 107(a) of review and approval in accordance with Form Number: CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a). the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DEA Form 251: CSOS DEA Registrant The Department of Justice will receive The proposed information collection is Certificate Application. published to obtain comments from the for a period of thirty (30) days from the DEA Form 252: CSOS Principal public and affected agencies. This date of this publication comments Coordinator/Alternate Coordinator proposed information collection was relating to the proposed Decree. Certificate Application. previously published in the Federal Comments should be addressed to the DEA Form 253: CSOS Power of Register at 74 FR 53760 (October 20, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney Certificate Application. 2009), allowing for a 60 day comment Environment and Natural Resources DEA Form 254: CSOS Certificate period. Division, and either e-mailed to Application Registrant List Addendum. [email protected] or The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public CSOS Certificate Revocation. mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Office of Diversion Control, Drug Department of Justice, Washington, DC comment until February 8, 2010. This process is conducted in accordance with Enforcement Administration, 20044–7611, and should refer to United Department of Justice. States v. Thoro Products Company, D.J. 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions (4) Affected public who will be asked Ref. 90–11–3–1719/7. or required to respond, as well as a brief The proposed Decree may be regarding the items contained in this abstract: examined at the Office of the United notice, especially the estimated public Primary: Business or other for-profit. States Attorney for the District of burden and associated response time, Other: Non-profit, State and local Colorado, 1225 17th Street, Suite 700, should be directed to the Office of government. Denver, CO 80202, and at U.S. EPA Management and Budget, Office of Abstract: Persons use these forms to Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St, Denver, CO Information and Regulatory Affairs, apply for DEA-issued digital certificates 80202–1129. During the public Attention Department of Justice Desk to order Schedule I and II controlled comment period, the proposed Decree Officer, Washington, DC 20503. substances. Certificates must be may also be examined on the following Additionally, comments may be renewed upon renewal of the DEA Department of Justice Web site: http:// submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) registration to which the certificate is www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 395–5806. Written comments and linked. Certificates may be revoked and/ Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the suggestions from the public and affected or replaced when information on which proposed Decree may also be obtained agencies concerning the proposed the certificate is based changes. by mail from the Consent Decree collection of information are (4) An estimate of the total number of Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department encouraged. Your comments should respondents and the amount of time of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 address one or more of the following estimated for an average respondent to or by faxing or e-mailing a request to four points: • respond: Tonia Fleetwood Evaluate whether the proposed Total number of respondents: 38,000 ([email protected]), fax no. collection of information is necessary per year and 113,000 for the three-year (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation for the proper performance of the period. Average time to respond: 0.58 number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a functions of the agency, including hours. copy from the Consent Decree Library, whether the information will have (5) An estimate of the total public please enclose a check in the amount of practical utility; • burden (in hours) associated with the $16.00 (25 cents per page reproduction Evaluate the accuracy of the collection: It is estimated that there are cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if agencies estimate of the burden of the 21,129 annual burden hours associated by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that proposed collection of information, with this collection. amount to the Consent Decree Library at including the validity of the If additional information is required the stated address. methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Maureen Katz, clarity of the information to be Clearance Officer, United States Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement collected; and Department of Justice, Justice Section, Environment and Natural Resources • Minimize the burden of the Management Division, Policy and Division. collection of information on those who Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, [FR Doc. 2010–125 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] are to respond, including through the Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., BILLING CODE P use of appropriate automated, Washington, DC 20530.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Dated: December 21, 2009. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Lynn Bryant, clarity of the information to be Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United collected; and Office of Justice Programs States Department of Justice. (4) Minimize the burden of the [OMB Number 1105–0071] [FR Doc. 2010–50 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] collection of information on those who BILLING CODE 4410–09–P are to respond, including through the Agency Information Collection use of appropriate automated, Activities: Proposed Reinstatement DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE electronic, mechanical, or other With Change of a Previously Approved technological collection techniques of Collection; Comments Requested Federal Bureau of Investigation other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of ACTION: 30-Day notice of information responses. collection under review: extension with [OMB Number 1110–NEW] change of a previously approved Overview of This Information Agency Information Collection collection national drug threat survey. Collection: Activities: New Collection, Comments The United States Department of Requested (1) Type of information collection: Justice (DOJ), National Drug Intelligence New collection. Center (NDIC), will be submitting the ACTION: 60-Day emergency notice of (2) The title of the form/collection: following information collection request information collection under review: to the Office of Management and Budget New collection; InfraGard Knowledge/ InfraGard Knowledge/Skills/Abilities Profile. (OMB) for review and approval in Skills/Abilities Profile questionnaire. accordance with the Paperwork (3) The agency form number, if any, Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed The Department of Justice, Federal and the applicable component of the information collection is published to Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice department sponsoring the collection: obtain comments from the public and Information Services Division will be Form Number: None; Sponsor: Criminal affected agencies. This proposed submitting the following information Justice Information Services Division, information collection was previously collection request to the Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation, published in the Federal Register Management and Budget (OMB) for Department of Justice. Volume 74, Number 201, page 53759 on review and clearance in accordance October 20, 2009, allowing for a 60-day with emergency review procedures of (4) Affected public who will be asked comment period. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. or required to respond, as well as a brief The purpose of this notice is to allow OMB approval has been requested by abstract: Primary: Public and private for an additional 30 days for public February 11, 2010. The proposed professionals self-identified as having comment until February 8, 2010. This information collection is published to information technology expertise. Brief process is conducted in accordance with obtain comments from the public and Abstract: InfraGard is a public/private 5 CFR 1320.10. affected agencies. Comments are alliance as mandated in Presidential Written comments and/or suggestions encouraged and will be accepted until Decision Directive 63. This form is used regarding the items contained in this March 9, 2010. This process is to classify members according to their notice, especially the estimated public conducted in accordance with 5 CFR expertise. burden and associated response time, 1320.10. (5) An estimate of the total number of should be directed to the Office of All comments and suggestions, or respondents and the amount of time Management and Budget, Office of questions regarding additional estimated for an average respondent to Information and Regulatory Affairs, information, to include obtaining a copy respond: There are approximately Attention Department of Justice Desk of the proposed information collection 28,000 InfraGard members, for a total of Officer, Washington, DC 20503. instrument with instructions, should be 28,000 responses with an estimated Additionally, comments may be directed to Douglas Dvorak, Supervisory response time of two minutes per submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) Special Agent, Federal Bureau of response. 395–5806. Written comments and Investigation, Cyber Division, 935 (6) An estimate of the total public suggestions from the public and affected Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., agencies concerning the proposed burden (in hours) associated with this Washington, DC 20535, (202) 651–3269. collection of information are collection: There are approximately 917 Written comments and suggestions encouraged. Your comments should hours, annual burden, associated with from the public and affected agencies address one or more of the following concerning the proposed collection of this information collection. four points: information are encouraged. Comments If additional information is required —Evaluate whether the proposed should address one or more of the contact: Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department collection of information is necessary following four points: Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning for the proper performance of the (1) Evaluate whether the proposed Staff, Justice Management Division, functions of the agency, including collection of information is necessary United States Department of Justice, whether the information will have for the proper performance of the Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 practical utility; functions of the agency, including D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. —Evaluate the accuracy of the whether the information will have agencies estimate of the burden of the Dated: January 4, 2010. practical utility; proposed collection of information, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Lynn Bryant, including the validity of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United methodology and assumptions used; proposed collection of information, States Department of Justice. —Enhance the quality, utility, and including the validity of the [FR Doc. 2010–52 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] clarity of the information to be methodology and assumptions used; BILLING CODE 4410–02–P collected; and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1085

—Minimize the burden of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (APCP) has been removed from the list collection of information on those who of explosive materials. On March 16, are to respond, including through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 2009, the United States District Court use of appropriate automated, and Explosives for the District of Columbia vacated the electronic, mechanical, or other [Docket No. ATF 34N] ATF classification of APCP as an technological collection techniques or explosive as defined under 18 U.S.C. other forms of information technology, Commerce in Explosives; List of 841(d). Tripoli Rocketry Ass’n, Inc. v. e.g., permitting electronic submission of Explosive Materials (2009R–18T) ATF, No. 00–0273 (March 16, 2009 responses. Order). As a result of the court’s AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, decision, APCP is no longer regulated Overview of This Information Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the Federal explosives laws at 18 Collection Department of Justice. U.S.C. Chapter 40. Accordingly, APCP ACTION: Notice of list of explosive has been removed from the list of (1) Type of Information Collection: materials. explosive materials. In addition, the Extension Reinstatement with Change of Department is revising the list to a Previously Approved Collection. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) include a parenthetical text after (2) Title of the Form/Collection: and 27 CFR 555.23, the Department ‘‘ammonium perchlorate explosive must publish and revise at least National Drug Threat Survey. mixtures’’ to clarify that the term annually in the Federal Register a list (3) Agency form number, if any, and excludes APCP. of explosives determined to be within This list supersedes the List of the applicable component of the the coverage of 18 U.S.C. 841 et seq. The Explosive Materials dated December 31, Department of Justice sponsoring the list covers not only explosives, but also 2008 (Docket No. ATF 28N, 73 FR collection: Form Number: NDIC Form # blasting agents and detonators, all of 80428). A–34j. which are defined as explosive Notice of List of Explosive Materials (4) Affected public who will be asked materials in 18 U.S.C. 841(c). As a result or required to respond, as well as a brief of a recent court decision, ammonium Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 abstract: Primary: Federal, State, Tribal, perchlorate composite propellant CFR 555.23, I hereby designate the and local law enforcement agencies. (APCP) is no longer regulated under the following as explosive materials covered This survey is a critical component of Federal explosives laws. Therefore, under 18 U.S.C. 841(c): APCP has been removed from the list of the National Drug Threat Assessment explosives. In addition, the Department A and other reports and assessments is revising the list to include a produced by the National Drug Acetylides of heavy metals. parenthetical text after ‘‘ammonium Aluminum containing polymeric propellant. Intelligence Center. It provides direct perchlorate explosive mixtures’’ to Aluminum ophorite explosive. access to detailed drug threat data from clarify that this term excludes APCP. Amatex. State and local law enforcement This notice publishes the 2009 List of Amatol. agencies. Ammonal. Explosive Materials. Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures (cap (5) An estimate of the total number of DATES: The list becomes effective upon sensitive). respondents and the amount of time publication of this notice on January 8, * Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures estimated for an average respondent to 2010. (non-cap sensitive). Ammonium perchlorate having particle size respond: It is estimated that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approximately 3,500 respondents will less than 15 microns. Debra S. Satkowiak, Chief; Explosives Ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures complete a survey response within Industry Programs Branch; Arson and (excluding ammonium perchlorate approximately 20 minutes. Explosives Programs Division; Bureau of composite propellant (APCP)). (6) An estimate of the total public Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Ammonium picrate [picrate of ammonia, burden (in hours) associated with the Explosives; United States Department of Explosive D]. collection: There are an estimated 1,167 Justice; 99 New York Avenue, NE., Ammonium salt lattice with isomorphously Washington, DC 20226 (202–648–7120). substituted inorganic salts. total annual burden hours associated *ANFO [ammonium nitrate-fuel oil]. with this collection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The list is Aromatic nitro-compound explosive intended to include any and all If additional information is required mixtures. mixtures containing any of the materials contact: Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Azide explosives. on the list. Materials constituting B Clearance Officer, United States blasting agents are marked by an Department of Justice, Justice asterisk. While the list is Baranol. Management Division, Policy and comprehensive, it is not all-inclusive. Baratol. BEAF [1, 2-bis (2, 2-difluoro-2- Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, The fact that an explosive material is Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., nitroacetoxyethane)]. not on the list does not mean that it is Black powder. Washington, DC 20530. not within the coverage of the law if it Black powder based explosive mixtures. Dated: December 21, 2009. otherwise meets the statutory *Blasting agents, nitro-carbo-nitrates, including non-cap sensitive slurry and Lynn Bryant, definitions in 18 U.S.C. 841. Explosive materials are listed alphabetically by water gel explosives. Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. their common names followed, where Blasting caps. Department of Justice. applicable, by chemical names and Blasting gelatin. Blasting powder. [FR Doc. 2010–51 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] synonyms in brackets. BILLING CODE 4410–DC–P BTNEC [bis (trinitroethyl) carbonate]. The Department has not added any BTNEN [bis (trinitroethyl) nitramine]. new terms to the list of explosive BTTN [1,2,4 butanetriol trinitrate]. materials. However, ammonium Bulk salutes. perchlorate composite propellant Butyl tetryl.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

C Fulminating platinum. Nitrogelatin explosive. Calcium nitrate explosive mixture. Fulminating silver. Nitrogen trichloride. Nitrogen tri-iodide. Cellulose hexanitrate explosive mixture. G Chlorate explosive mixtures. Nitroglycerine [NG, RNG, nitro, glyceryl Composition A and variations. Gelatinized nitrocellulose. trinitrate, trinitroglycerine]. Composition B and variations. Gem-dinitro aliphatic explosive mixtures. Nitroglycide. Composition C and variations. Guanyl nitrosamino guanyl tetrazene. Nitroglycol [ethylene glycol dinitrate, EGDN]. Copper acetylide. Guanyl nitrosamino guanylidene hydrazine. Nitroguanidine explosives. Cyanuric triazide. Guncotton. Nitronium perchlorate propellant mixtures. Nitroparaffins Explosive Grade and Cyclonite [RDX]. H Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine [HMX]. ammonium nitrate mixtures. Heavy metal azides. Cyclotol. Nitrostarch. Hexanite. Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine [RDX]. Nitro-substituted carboxylic acids. Hexanitrodiphenylamine. Nitrourea. D Hexanitrostilbene. O DATB [diaminotrinitrobenzene]. Hexogen [RDX]. DDNP [diazodinitrophenol]. Hexogene or octogene and a nitrated N- Octogen [HMX]. DEGDN [diethyleneglycol dinitrate]. methylaniline. Octol [75 percent HMX, 25 percent TNT]. Detonating cord. Hexolites. Organic amine nitrates. Detonators. HMTD [hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine]. Organic nitramines. HMX [cyclo-1,3,5,7-tetramethylene 2,4,6,8- Dimethylol dimethyl methane dinitrate P composition. tetranitramine; Octogen]. Hydrazinium nitrate/hydrazine/aluminum PBX [plastic bonded explosives]. Dinitroethyleneurea. explosive system. Pellet powder. Dinitroglycerine [glycerol dinitrate]. Hydrazoic acid. Penthrinite composition. Dinitrophenol. Pentolite. Dinitrophenolates. I Perchlorate explosive mixtures. Dinitrophenyl hydrazine. Igniter cord. Peroxide based explosive mixtures. Dinitroresorcinol. Igniters. PETN [nitropentaerythrite, pentaerythrite Dinitrotoluene-sodium nitrate explosive Initiating tube systems. tetranitrate, pentaerythritol tetranitrate]. mixtures. Picramic acid and its salts. DIPAM [dipicramide; K Picramide. diaminohexanitrobiphenyl]. KDNBF [potassium dinitrobenzo-furoxane]. Picrate explosives. Dipicryl sulfone. L Picrate of potassium explosive mixtures. Dipicrylamine. Picratol. Display fireworks. Lead azide. Picric acid (manufactured as an explosive). DNPA [2,2-dinitropropyl acrylate]. Lead mannite. Picryl chloride. DNPD [dinitropentano nitrile]. Lead mononitroresorcinate. Picryl fluoride. Dynamite. Lead picrate. PLX [95% nitromethane, 5% Lead salts, explosive. E ethylenediamine]. Lead styphnate [styphnate of lead, lead Polynitro aliphatic compounds. EDDN [ethylene diamine dinitrate]. trinitroresorcinate]. Polyolpolynitrate-nitrocellulose explosive EDNA [ethylenedinitramine]. Liquid nitrated polyol and trimethylolethane. gels. Ednatol. Liquid oxygen explosives. Potassium chlorate and lead sulfocyanate EDNP [ethyl 4,4-dinitropentanoate]. M explosive. EGDN [ethylene glycol dinitrate]. Potassium nitrate explosive mixtures. Erythritol tetranitrate explosives. Magnesium ophorite explosives. Potassium nitroaminotetrazole. Esters of nitro-substituted alcohols. Mannitol hexanitrate. Pyrotechnic compositions. Ethyl-tetryl. MDNP [methyl 4,4-dinitropentanoate]. PYX [2,6-bis(picrylamino)] 3,5- Explosive conitrates. MEAN [monoethanolamine nitrate]. dinitropyridine. Explosive gelatins. Mercuric fulminate. Explosive liquids. Mercury oxalate. R Explosive mixtures containing oxygen- Mercury tartrate. RDX [cyclonite, hexogen, T4, cyclo-1,3,5,- releasing inorganic salts and hydrocarbons. Metriol trinitrate. trimethylene-2,4,6,-trinitramine; Explosive mixtures containing oxygen- Minol-2 [40% TNT, 40% ammonium nitrate, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-S-triazine]. releasing inorganic salts and nitro bodies. 20% aluminum]. Explosive mixtures containing oxygen- MMAN [monomethylamine nitrate]; S releasing inorganic salts and water methylamine nitrate. Safety fuse. insoluble fuels. Mononitrotoluene-nitroglycerin mixture. Salts of organic amino sulfonic acid Explosive mixtures containing oxygen- Monopropellants. explosive mixture. releasing inorganic salts and water soluble Salutes (bulk). N fuels. Silver acetylide. Explosive mixtures containing sensitized NIBTN [nitroisobutametriol trinitrate]. Silver azide. nitromethane. Nitrate explosive mixtures. Silver fulminate. Explosive mixtures containing Nitrate sensitized with gelled nitroparaffin. Silver oxalate explosive mixtures. tetranitromethane (nitroform). Nitrated carbohydrate explosive. Silver styphnate. Explosive nitro compounds of aromatic Nitrated glucoside explosive. Silver tartrate explosive mixtures. hydrocarbons. Nitrated polyhydric alcohol explosives. Silver tetrazene. Explosive organic nitrate mixtures. Nitric acid and a nitro aromatic compound Slurried explosive mixtures of water, Explosive powders. explosive. inorganic oxidizing salt, gelling agent, fuel, Nitric acid and carboxylic fuel explosive. and sensitizer (cap sensitive). F Nitric acid explosive mixtures. Smokeless powder. Flash powder. Nitro aromatic explosive mixtures. Sodatol. Fulminate of mercury. Nitro compounds of furane explosive Sodium amatol. Fulminate of silver. mixtures. Sodium azide explosive mixture. Fulminating gold. Nitrocellulose explosive. Sodium dinitro-ortho-cresolate. Fulminating mercury. Nitroderivative of urea explosive mixture. Sodium nitrate explosive mixtures.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1087

Sodium nitrate-potassium nitrate explosive request (ICR) to the Office of Estimated Number of Respondents: mixture. Management and Budget (OMB) for 120,000. Sodium picramate. review and approval in accordance with Estimated Total Annual Burden Special fireworks. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Hours: 20,000. Squibs. Styphnic acid explosives. (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden A copy of this ICR, with applicable (excludes hourly wage costs): $0. T supporting documentation; including, Description: To meet the Agency’s Tacot [tetranitro-2,3,5,6-dibenzo-1,3a,4,6a among other things, a description of the program needs, OSHA is proposing to tetrazapentalene]. likely respondents, proposed frequency continue its initiative to collect injury TATB [triaminotrinitrobenzene]. of response, and estimated total burden and illness data and the number of TATP [triacetonetriperoxide]. may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov workers and hours worked from TEGDN [triethylene glycol dinitrate]. Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ establishments in portions of the private Tetranitrocarbazole. sector and some State government Tetrazene [tetracene, tetrazine, 1(5- public/do/PRAMain or by contacting tetrazolyl)-4-guanyl tetrazene hydrate]. Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is agencies. The purpose of the data Tetrazole explosives. not a toll-free number)/e-mail: collection is to compile occupational Tetryl [2,4,6 tetranitro-N-methylaniline]. [email protected]. injury and illness data from employers Tetrytol. Interested parties are encouraged to within specific industries and size Thickened inorganic oxidizer salt slurried send comments to the Office of categories allowing OSHA to calculate explosive mixture. Information and Regulatory Affairs, occupational injury and illness rates by TMETN [trimethylolethane trinitrate]. Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the employer and specific industry. The TNEF [trinitroethyl formal]. Department of Labor—Occupational agency will require this information TNEOC [trinitroethylorthocarbonate]. Safety and Health Administration from up to 120,000 employers required TNEOF [trinitroethylorthoformate]. TNT [trinitrotoluene, trotyl, trilite, triton]. (OSHA), Office of Management and to create and maintain records pursuant Torpex. Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC to 29 CFR Part 1904. For additional Tridite. 20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: information, see the related 60-day Trimethylol ethyl methane trinitrate 202–395–5806 (these are not toll-free preclearance notice published in the composition. numbers), E-mail: Federal Register at Vol. 74 FR 45881 on Trimethylolthane trinitrate-nitrocellulose. [email protected] within September 4, 2009. PRA documentation Trimonite. 30 days from the date of this publication prepared in association with the Trinitroanisole. in the Federal Register. In order to preclearance notice is available on Trinitrobenzene. ensure the appropriate consideration, http://www.regulations.gov under Trinitrobenzoic acid. Trinitrocresol. comments should reference the OMB docket number OSHA–2009–0029. Control Number (see below). Trinitro-meta-cresol. Darrin A. King, Trinitronaphthalene. The OMB is particularly interested in Departmental Clearance Officer. Trinitrophenetol. comments which: Trinitrophloroglucinol. • Evaluate whether the proposed [FR Doc. 2010–86 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Trinitroresorcinol. collection of information is necessary BILLING CODE 4510–26–P Tritonal. for the proper performance of the U functions of the agency, including whether the information will have NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Urea nitrate. practical utility; W • Evaluate the accuracy of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Water-bearing explosives having salts of agency’s estimate of the burden of the Committee #13883; Notice of Meeting proposed collection of information, oxidizing acids and nitrogen bases, In accordance with the Federal sulfates, or sulfamates (cap sensitive). including the validity of the Water-in-oil emulsion explosive methodology and assumptions used; Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– compositions. • Enhance the quality, utility, and 463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following X clarity of the information to be collected; and Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Xanthamonas hydrophilic colloid explosive • Minimize the burden of the Committee (#13883) meeting: mixture. collection of information on those who Date and Time: February 1–2, 2010, Approved: December 28, 2009. are to respond, including through the 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m. Kenneth E. Melson, use of appropriate automated, Place: National Science Foundation, Deputy Director. electronic, mechanical, or other Room 595, Stafford II Building, 4201 [FR Doc. 2010–45 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] technological collection techniques or Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Type of Meeting: Open. BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of Contact Person: Dr. Craig Foltz, responses. Acting Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. National Science Foundation, 4201 Office of the Secretary Type of Review: Revision and Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. extension of a previously approved Telephone: 703–292–4909. Submission for OMB Review: collection. Purpose of Meeting: To provide Comment Request Title of Collection: OSHA Data advice and recommendations to the Initiative (ODI). National Science Foundation (NSF), the January 4, 2010. OMB Control Number: 1218–0209. National Aeronautics and Space The Department of Labor (DOL) Affected Public: Business or other for- Administration (NASA) and the U.S. hereby announces the submission of the profits and State, Local, or Tribal Department of Energy (DOE) on issues following public information collection Government. within the field of astronomy and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

astrophysics that are of mutual interest II. Summary available electronically under ADAMS and concern to the agencies. Accession Number ML093430195. The MOU provides a framework for Agenda: To hear presentations of this cooperative relationship and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day current programming by representatives identifies the responsibilities of each of December 2009. from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agency. The intent of the MOU is to For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. agencies relevant to astronomy and improve interagency communications, Patrice M. Bubar, astrophysics; to discuss current and facilitate the sharing of special expertise Deputy Director, Environmental Protection potential areas of cooperation between and information, and coordinate the and Performance Assessment Directorate, the agencies; to formulate preparation of studies, reports and Division of Waste Management and recommendations for continued and environmental (NEPA) documents Environmental Protection, Office of Federal new areas of cooperation and and State Materials and Environmental associated with NRC licensing actions Management Programs. mechanisms for achieving them. and the BLM administration of public Dated: January 5, 2010. lands. The implementation of the MOU [FR Doc. 2010–116 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Susanne E. Bolton, will occur through periodic meetings BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Committee Management Officer. between the NRC and BLM management [FR Doc. 2010–82 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] to ensure coordination, establishing POSTAL SERVICE BILLING CODE 7555–01–P points of contact at each agency, identifying information gaps that can be Board of Governors; Sunshine Act filled by each agency, and ensuring that Meeting specific environmental resources issues NUCLEAR REGULATORY of interest to each agency are covered in TIMES AND DATES: 3:30 p.m., Monday, COMMISSION each environmental review. To the January 11, 2010; and 7:30 a.m., fullest extent possible, NRC and BLM Tuesday, January 12, 2010. will participate either as lead agency, [NRC–2009–0578] PLACE: Newport Beach, California, at the co-lead or cooperating agency on the Fairmont Hotel, 4500 MacArthur Notice of Availability of a preparation of site-specific Boulevard. Memorandum of Understanding environmental documents. STATUS: (Closed) Between the Nuclear Regulatory III. Further Information MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commission and the Bureau of Land Management Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Monday, January 11, at 3:30 p.m. http://www.regulations.gov and search (Closed) AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory for documents filed under Docket ID Commission. 1. Strategic Issues. NRC–2009–0578. Address questions 2. Financial Matters. ACTION: Notice of Availability. about NRC documents to Carol 3. Pricing. Gallagher, 301–492–3668; e-mail 4. Personnel Matters and Compensation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. [email protected]. Issues. Alan Bjornsen, Project Manager, Publicly available documents related 5. Governors’ Executive Session— Environmental Review Branch, Division to this notice can be accessed using the Discussion of prior agenda items of Waste Management and following methods: and Board Governance. Environmental Protection, Office of NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): Tuesday, January 12, at 7:30 a.m. Federal and State Materials and The public may examine and have (Closed) Environmental Management Programs, copied, for a fee, publicly available U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 1. Continuation of Monday’s agenda. Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone: File Area 01 F21, One White Flint CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 301–415–1195, fax number: 301–415– North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, 5369; e-mail: [email protected]. Maryland. U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access SW., Washington, DC 20260–1000. and Management System (ADAMS): Telephone (202) 268–4800. I. Introduction Publicly available documents created or Julie S. Moore, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received at the NRC are available Secretary. (NRC) and the Bureau of Land electronically at the NRC’s Electronic [FR Doc. 2010–161 Filed 1–6–10; 11:15 am] Management (BLM) have finalized a Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, BILLING CODE 7710–12–P to define the cooperative working the public can gain entry into ADAMS, relationship between the agencies in which provides text and image files of each agency’s preparation of National NRC’s public documents. If you do not RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have access to ADAMS or if there are Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting documents related to the extraction of problems in accessing the documents uranium and thorium on public lands located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s Notice is hereby given that the administered by BLM. The MOU was PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, Railroad Retirement Board will hold a finalized on November 30, 2009. The 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to meeting on January 14, 2010, 9 a.m. at MOU will improve the interagency [email protected]. The the Board’s meeting room on the 8th communications, facilitate the sharing ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding floor of its headquarters building, 844 of special expertise and information, between the Bureau of Land North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois and coordinate the preparation of Management, Department of the Interior 60611. The agenda for this meeting studies, reports and environmental and the Nuclear Regulatory follows: (NEPA) documents. Commission, an Independent Agency’’ is Portion open to the public:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1089

(1) Executive Committee Reports. transfer agents and ensuring compliance SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Portion closed to the public: with the rule. COMMISSION (A) Employer Status Determination— Because the information required by Submission for OMB Review; Employee Service Determination— Rule 17Ad-11 is already available to Comment Request Decision on Remand—Former Police transfer agents, any collection burden Officers of MTA. for small transfer agents is minimal. The person to contact for more Upon Written Request, Copies Based on a review of the number of Rule Available From: U.S. Securities and information is Beatrice Ezerski, 17Ad-11 reports the Commission, the Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312– Exchange Commission, Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Board 751–4920. Investor Education and Advocacy, of Governors of the Federal Reserve Washington, DC 20549–0213. Dated: January 5, 2010. System, and the Federal Deposit Extension: Rule 17i–3, SEC File No. Beatrice Ezerski, Insurance Corporation received since 270–529, OMB Control No. 3235–0593. Secretary to the Board. 2006, the Commission estimates that 25 Notice is hereby given that pursuant [FR Doc. 2010–210 Filed 1–6–10; 11:15 am] respondents will file a total of to the Paperwork Reduction Act of BILLING CODE 7905–01–P approximately 30 reports annually. The 1995 1 the Securities and Exchange Commission estimates that each report Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has can be completed in 30 minutes. submitted to the Office of Management Therefore, the total annual hourly and Budget a request for extension of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE burden to the entire transfer agent COMMISSION the previously approved collection of industry is approximately 15 hours (30 information discussed below. The Code Submission for OMB Review; minutes multiplied by 30 reports). of Federal Regulation citation to this Comment Request Assuming an average hourly rate of a collection of information is the transfer agent staff employee of $25, the following: 17 CFR 240.17i–3. Upon Written Request, Copies Available average total cost of the report is $12.50. Section 231 of the Gramm-Leach- From: Securities and Exchange The total cost for the approximate 25 Bliley Act of 1999 2 (the ‘‘GLBA’’) Commission, Office of Investor respondents is approximately $750. amended Section 17 of the Securities Education and Advocacy, The retention period for the Exchange Act of 1934 (17 USC 78a et Washington, DC 20549–0213. recordkeeping requirement under Rule seq.) (‘‘the Exchange Act’’) to create a Extension: 17Ad-11 is three years following the regulatory framework under which a Rule 17Ad-11; SEC File No. 270–261; OMB date of a report prepared pursuant to the holding company of a broker-dealer Control No. 3235–0274. rule. The recordkeeping requirement (‘‘investment bank holding company’’ or Notice is hereby given that pursuant under Rule 17Ad-11 is mandatory to ‘‘IBHC’’) may voluntarily be supervised to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 assist the Commission and other by the Commission as a supervised (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities regulatory agencies with monitoring investment bank holding company (or 3 and Exchange Commission transfer agents and ensuring compliance ‘‘SIBHC’’). In 2004, the Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the with the rule. This rule does not involve promulgated rules, including Rule 17i– Office of Management and Budget a the collection of confidential 3, to create a framework for the 4 request for approval of extension of the information. Commission to supervise SIBHCs. This existing collection of information framework includes qualification Please note that an agency may not provided for Rule 17Ad-11 (17 CFR criteria for SIBHCs, as well as conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 240.17Ad-11) under the Securities recordkeeping and reporting required to respond to, a collection of Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a requirements. Among other things, this information unless it displays a et seq.) (‘‘Exchange Act’’). regulatory framework for SIBHCs is currently valid control number. Rule 17Ad-11 requires all registered intended to provide a basis for non-U.S. transfer agents to report to issuers and Comments should be directed to: (i) financial regulators to treat the the appropriate regulatory agency in the Desk Officer for the Securities and Commission as the principal U.S. event that aged record differences Exchange Commission, Office of consolidated, home-country supervisor exceed certain dollar value thresholds. Information and Regulatory Affairs, for SIBHCs and their affiliated broker- An aged record difference occurs when Office of Management and Budget, dealers.5 an issuer’s records do not agree with Room 10102, New Executive Office Rule 17i–3 permits an SIBHC to those of securityowners as indicated, for Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by withdraw from Commission supervision instance, on certificates presented to the sending an e-mail to: (i) by filing a notice of withdrawal with the transfer agent for purchase, redemption [email protected]; and Commission. The Rule requires that an or transfer. In addition, the rule requires (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief SIBHC include in its notice of transfer agents to report to the Information Officer, Securities and withdrawal a statement that it is in appropriate regulatory agency in the Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley compliance with Rule 17i–2(c) event of a failure to post certificate Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, regarding amendments to its Notice of detail to the master securityholder file Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e- Intention to help to assure that the within 5 business days of the time mail to [email protected]. Commission has updated information required by Rule 17Ad-10 (17 CFR Comments must be submitted to OMB 240.17Ad-10). Also, transfer agents must within 30 days of this notice. 1 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 2 Public Law 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999). maintain a copy of each report prepared January 4, 2010. under Rule 17Ad-11 for a period of 3 See 15 U.S.C. 78q(i). three years following the date of the Florence E. Harmon, 4 See Exchange Act Release No. 49831 (Jun. 8, Deputy Secretary. 2004), 69 FR 34472 (Jun. 21, 2004). report. This recordkeeping requirement 5 See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106–434, 165 (1999). [FR Doc. 2010–68 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] assists the Commission and other See also Exchange Act Release No. 49831, at 6 (Jun. regulatory agencies with monitoring BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 8, 2004), 69 FR 34472, at 34473 (Jun. 21, 2004).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

when considering the SIBHC’s Dated: December 30, 2009. burden for all post-effective withdrawal request. Florence E. Harmon, amendments to the Form would be 224 The collection of information required Deputy Secretary. hours. By combining the total hour by Rule 17i–3 is necessary to enable the [FR Doc. 2010–40 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] burdens estimated for initial Form N– Commission to evaluate whether it is BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 8B–2 filings and post-effective necessary and appropriate in the amendments filings to the Form, the furtherance of Section 17 of the Commission estimates that the total Exchange Act for the Commission to SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE annual burden hours for all registrants allow an SIBHC to withdraw from COMMISSION on Form N–8B–2 would be 312. supervision. Without this information, Estimates of the burden hours are made the Commission would be unable to Submission for OMB Review; solely for the purposes of the PRA, and make this evaluation. Comment Request are not derived from a comprehensive or We estimate, for Paperwork Reduction Upon Written Request Copies Available even a representative survey or study of Act purposes only, that one SIBHC may From: Securities and Exchange the costs of SEC rules and forms. wish to withdraw from Commission Commission, Office of Investor The information provided on Form supervision as an SIBHC over a ten-year Education and Advocacy, N–8B–2 is mandatory. The information period. Each SIBHC that withdraws Washington, DC 20549–0213. provided on Form N–8B–2 will not be kept confidential. An Agency may not from Commission supervision as an Extension: SIBHC will require approximately 24 Form N–8B–2; SEC File No. 270–186; OMB conduct or sponsor, and a person is not hours to draft a withdrawal notice and Control No. 3235–0186. required to respond to, a collection of submit it to the Commission. An SIBHC information unless it displays a Notice is hereby given that, pursuant currently valid OMB control number. likely would have an attorney perform to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Please direct general comments this task. Further, an SIBHC likely will (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities regarding the above information to the have a senior attorney or executive and Exchange Commission (the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for officer review the notice of withdrawal ‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the the Securities and Exchange before submitting it to the Commission, Office of Management and Budget a Commission, Office of Management and which will take approximately eight request for extension of the previously Budget, Room 10102, New Executive hours. Thus, we estimate that the approved collection of information Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 annual, aggregate burden of discussed below. withdrawing from Commission or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at Form N–8B–2 (17 CFR 274.12) is the _ supervision as an SIBHC will be form used by unit investment trusts Shagufta [email protected]; and (ii) approximately 3.2 hours each year.6 (‘‘UITs’’) other than separate accounts Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, The collection of information is that are currently issuing securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, mandatory and the information required including UITs that are issuers of C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General to be provided to the Commission periodic payment plan certificates and Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or pursuant to this Rule is deemed UITs of which a management send an e-mail to: _ confidential pursuant to Section 17(j) of investment company is the sponsor or PRA [email protected]. Comments must the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 7 depositor, to comply with the filing and be submitted to OMB within 30 days of and Section 552(b)(3)(B) of the Freedom disclosure requirements imposed by this notice. of Information Act,8 notwithstanding section 8(b) of the Investment Company Dated: January 4, 2010. any other provision of law. Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–8(b)). Form Florence E. Harmon, An agency may not conduct or N–8B–2 requires disclosure about the Deputy Secretary. sponsor, and a person is not required to organization of a UIT, its securities, the [FR Doc. 2010–67 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] respond to, a collection of information personnel and affiliated persons of the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P unless it displays a currently valid depositor, the distribution and control number. redemption of securities, the trustee or Comments should be directed to: (i) custodian, and financial statements. The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Desk Officer for the Securities and Commission uses the information COMMISSION Exchange Commission Office of provided in the collection of Information and Regulatory Affairs, information to determine compliance Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Office of Management and Budget, with section 8(b) of the Investment Room 10102, New Executive Office Company Act. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Building, Washington, DC, 20503 or by Based on the Commission’s industry the provisions of the Government in the sending an e-mail to: statistics, the Commission estimates that Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that [email protected]; and there would be approximately two the Securities and Exchange (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief initial filings on Form N–8B–2 and 14 Commission will hold an Open Meeting Information Officer, Securities and post-effective amendment filings to the on January 13, 2010 at 10 a.m., in the Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Form annually. The Commission Auditorium, Room L–002. Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, estimates that each registrant filing an The subject matter of the Open Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e- initial Form N–8B–2 would spend 44 Meeting will be: mail to [email protected]. hours in preparing and filing the Form Item 1: The Commission will consider Comments must be submitted to OMB and that the total hour burden for all whether to publish a concept release on within 30 days of this notice. initial Form N–8B–2 filings would be 88 equity market structure. The concept hours. Also, the Commission estimates release would invite public comment on 6 (1 SIBHC/every 10 years) × (24 hours to draft + that each UIT filing a post-effective a wide range of issues, including the 8 hours to review) = 3.2 hours. amendment to Form N–8B–2 would performance of equity market structure 7 15 U.S.C. 78q(j). spend 16 hours in preparing and filing in recent years, high frequency trading, 8 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B). the amendment and that the total hour and undisplayed, or ‘‘dark,’’ liquidity.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1091

Item 2: The Commission will consider and approved by the Commission.4 The As part of its effort to reduce whether to propose a new rule regarding text of the proposed rule change is regulatory duplication and relieve firms risk management controls and available at the Exchange, the that are members of FINRA, NYSE and supervisory procedures to manage Commission’s Public Reference Room, NYSE Amex of conflicting or financial, regulatory and other risks for and www.nyse.com. unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA brokers or dealers that provide market is now engaged in the process of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s access. reviewing and amending the NASD and Statement of the Purpose of, and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in At times, changes in Commission Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule priorities require alterations in the order to create a consolidated FINRA Change 6 scheduling of meeting items. rulebook. In its filing with the Commission, the For further information and to Proposed Conforming Amendments to Exchange included statements ascertain what, if any, matters have been NYSE Rules concerning the purpose of, and basis for, added, deleted or postponed, please the proposed rule change and discussed FINRA adopted, subject to certain contact: any comments it received on the amendments, NASD Rule 3011 (Anti- The Office of the Secretary at (202) proposed rule change. The text of those Money Laundering Compliance 551–5400. statements may be examined at the Program) and related Interpretive Dated: January 5, 2010. places specified in Item IV below. The Material NASD IM–3011–1 and 3011–2 as consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 (Anti- Elizabeth M. Murphy, Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of Money Laundering Compliance Secretary. Program), and deleted FINRA [FR Doc. 2010–200 Filed 1–6–10; 11:15 am] the most significant parts of such statements. Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 (Anti- BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Money Laundering Compliance A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Program) as duplicative of the new Statement of the Purpose of, and Rule.7 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Because it is substantially similar to COMMISSION Changes the provisions of FINRA Rule 3310, FINRA deleted FINRA Incorporated 1. Purpose [Release No. 34–61273; File No. SR–NYSE– NYSE Rule 445. In particular, FINRA 2009–134] The purpose of the proposed rule Incorporated NYSE Rule 445(1)–(5) are changes is to delete NYSE Rule 445 substantially the same as consolidated Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance FINRA Rule 3310(a)–(e). In addition, of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness Program) and adopt new Rule 3310 Supplementary Material .10 and .20 to of Proposed Rule Change by New York (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are Stock Exchange LLC Deleting NYSE Program) to correspond with rule substantially the same as Rule 445 and Adopting New Rule 3310 changes filed by FINRA and approved Supplementary Material .01 to To Correspond With Rule Changes by the Commission. consolidated FINRA Rule 3310. Finally, Filed by the Financial Industry read together, part (4) and Background Regulatory Authority, Inc. Supplementary Material .30 to FINRA December 31, 2009. On July 30, 2007, FINRA’s Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are 1 predecessor, the National Association of substantially the same as Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’), and Supplementary Material .02 to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the NYSE Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NYSER’’) consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 with ‘‘ ’’ 2 3 Act ) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, consolidated their member firm respect to the notification of AML notice is hereby given that, on December regulation operations into a combined compliance person designations.8 31, 2009, New York Stock Exchange organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule To harmonize the NYSE Rules with ‘‘ ’’ ‘‘ ’’ LLC ( NYSE or the Exchange ) filed 17d–2 under the Act, NYSE, NYSER and the approved consolidated FINRA with the Securities and Exchange FINRA entered into an agreement (the Rules, the Exchange correspondingly ‘‘ ’’ Commission (the Commission ) the ‘‘Agreement’’) to reduce regulatory proposes to delete NYSE Rule 445 and proposed rule change as described in duplication for their members by replace it with proposed NYSE Rule Items I and II below, which Items have allocating to FINRA certain regulatory 3310, which is substantially similar to been substantially prepared by the responsibilities for certain NYSE rules the new FINRA Rule.9 As proposed, Exchange. The Commission is and rule interpretations (‘‘FINRA publishing this notice to solicit Incorporated NYSE Rules’’). NYSE proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE Amex comments on the proposed rule change Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE Amex’’) became a to the substance of any of the Common Rules. from interested persons. 6 FINRA’s rulebook currently has three sets of party to the Agreement effective rules: (1) NASD Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s December 15, 2008.5 NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA Rules. Statement of the Terms of Substance of The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to the Proposed Rule Change 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 those members of FINRA that are also members of (September 10, 2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, the NYSE (‘‘Dual Members’’), while the consolidated 2009) (order approving SR–FINRA–2009–039). FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For The Exchange proposes to delete more information about the FINRA rulebook NYSE Rule 445 and adopt new Rule 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order consolidation process, see FINRA Information 3310 to correspond with rule changes approving the Agreement); 56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 Notice, March 12, 2008. filed by the Financial Industry FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR–NASD–2007–054) 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE (September 10, 2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, Rules as ‘‘Common Rules’’) and 60409 (July 30, 2009). 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6, 2009) (order 8 Id. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). approving the amended and restated Agreement, 9 NYSE Amex has submitted a companion rule 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. adding NYSE Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) filing amending its rules in accordance with 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. of the Agreement sets forth procedures regarding Continued

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1092 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

NYSE Rule 3310 adopts the same B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s reasons, the Commission believes that language as FINRA Rule 3310, except Statement on Burden on Competition waiver of the 30-day operative delay is for substituting for or adding to, as The Exchange does not believe that consistent with the protection of needed, the term ‘‘member organization’’ the proposed rule change will impose investors and the public interest for the term ‘‘member,’’ and making any burden on competition that is not because it will promote greater corresponding technical changes that necessary or appropriate in furtherance harmonization between NYSE Rules and reflect the difference between NYSE’s of the purposes of the Act. FINRA Rules of similar purpose, and FINRA’s membership structures. In resulting in less burdensome and more C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s efficient regulatory compliance for joint addition, in Supplementary Material .02 Statement on Comments on the to proposed Rule 3310, the Exchange members and greater harmonization Proposed Rule Change Received From between NYSE Rules and FINRA Rules. added a cross-reference to NYSE Rule Members, Participants, or Others 416A to ensure that those Exchange Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change effective and members and member organizations that No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed operative upon filing.17 are not FINRA members are required to rule change. At any time within 60 days of the update the contact information for anti- filing of the proposed rule change, the III. Date of Effectiveness of the money laundering compliance Commission may summarily abrogate Proposed Rule Change and Timing for personnel in accordance with NYSE such rule change if it appears to the Commission Action Rules. Commission that such action is Finally, in order to ensure that both The Exchange has filed the proposed necessary or appropriate in the public proposed NYSE Rule 3310 and FINRA rule change pursuant to Section interest, for the protection of investors, 12 Rule 3310 are fully harmonized, the 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule or otherwise in furtherance of the 13 Exchange also proposes to add 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder. Because the purposes of the Act. proposed rule change does not: (i) Supplementary Material .03 to NYSE IV. Solicitation of Comments Rule 3310 to provide that, for the Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) purposes of the rule, the term Interested persons are invited to impose any significant burden on ‘‘ submit written data, views, and associated person of the member or competition; and (iii) becomes operative member organization’’ shall have the arguments concerning the foregoing, prior to 30 days from the date on which including whether the proposed rule same meaning as the terms ‘‘person it was filed, or such shorter time as the change is consistent with the Act. associated with a member’’ or Commission may designate, if Comments may be submitted by any of ‘‘associated person of a member’’ as consistent with the protection of the following methods: defined in Article I (rr) of the FINRA By- investors and the public interest, the Laws. proposed rule change has become Electronic Comments effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) • 2. Statutory Basis Use the Commission’s Internet of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ The Exchange believes that the thereunder. rules/sro.shtml); or proposed rule change is consistent with A proposed rule change filed under • Send an e-mail to rule- 14 Section 6(b) of the Act,10 in general, and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not [email protected]. Please include File furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) become operative prior to 30 days after Number SR–NYSE–2009–134 on the the date of the filing. However, pursuant of the Act,11 in particular, because it is subject line. to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),15 the designed to prevent fraudulent and Commission may designate a shorter Paper Comments manipulative acts and practices, to time if such action is consistent with the • Send paper comments in triplicate promote just and equitable principles of protection of investors and the public trade, to remove impediments to and to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, interest. The Exchange has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission, perfect the mechanism of a free and Commission to waive the 30-day 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC open market and a national market operative delay so that the proposal may 20549–1090. system, and, in general, to protect become operative immediately upon investors and the public interest. All submissions should refer to File filing. The Commission notes that the Number SR–NYSE–2009–134. This file The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is substantially number should be included on the proposed rule change supports the identical to a rule change proposed by subject line if e-mail is used. To help the objectives of the Act by providing FINRA and approved by the Commission process and review your greater harmonization between NYSE Commission after an opportunity for comments more efficiently, please use Rules and FINRA Rules (including public comment, and does not raise any 16 only one method. The Commission will Common Rules) of similar purpose, new substantive issues. For these post all comments on the Commission’s resulting in less burdensome and more Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). efficient regulatory compliance for Dual 13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Members. To the extent the Exchange’s 14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). submission, all subsequent proposal differs from FINRA’s version of 15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule amendments, all written statements the Rules, such differences are technical 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory with respect to the proposed rule in nature and do not change the organization to submit to the Commission written change that are filed with the notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, substance of the proposed NYSE Rules. along with a brief description and text of the Commission, and all written proposed rule change, at least five business days communications relating to the prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule FINRA’s rule changes. See SR–NYSE–Amex–2009– change, or such shorter time as designated by the 17 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 99. Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this operative delay, the Commission has considered the 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). requirement. proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 16 See supra note 7. and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1093

proposed rule change between the contracts on ETFS Physical Swiss Gold clearing of such futures as security Commission and any person, other than Shares and ETFS Physical Silver Shares. futures constitutes a violation of the those that may be withheld from the CEA. The products for which approval II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s public in accordance with the is requested are essentially the same as Statement of the Purpose of, and provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the options and security futures on Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule available for inspection and copying in SPDR Gold Shares, iShares COMEX Change the Commission’s Public Reference Gold Shares, and iShares Silver Shares Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, In its filing with the Commission, that OCC currently clears pursuant to DC 20549, on official business days OCC included statements concerning the rule changes referred to above and between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. the purpose of and basis for the exemptions issued by the CFTC. 3 OCC Copies of the filing will also be available proposed rule change and discussed any believes that this filing raises no new for inspection and copying at the comments it received on the proposed regulatory or policy issues. NYSE’s principal office and on its rule change. The text of these statements OCC believes that the proposed Internet Web site at http:// may be examined at the places specified interpretation of OCC’s By-Laws is www.nyse.com. All comments received in Item IV below. The self-regulatory consistent with the purposes and will be posted without change; the organization has prepared summaries, requirements of Section 17A of the Act 4 Commission does not edit personal set forth in sections A, B, and C below, because it is designed to promote the identifying information from of the most significant aspects of such prompt and accurate clearance and submissions. You should submit only statements. settlement of transactions in securities information that you wish to make A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s options and security futures, to foster available publicly. All submissions Statement of the Purpose of, and cooperation and coordination with should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule persons engaged in the clearance and 2009–134 and should be submitted on Change settlement of such transactions, to or before January 29, 2010. remove impediments to and perfect the The purpose of the proposed rule mechanism of a national system for the For the Commission, by the Division of change is to clarify the jurisdictional Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated prompt and accurate clearance and status of options or security futures on authority.18 settlement of such transactions, and, in ETFS Physical Swiss Gold Shares or Florence E. Harmon, general, to protect investors and the ETFS Physical Silver Shares. OCC Deputy Secretary. public interest. It accomplishes these proposes to amend the interpretation purposes by reducing the likelihood of [FR Doc. 2010–80 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] ‘‘ ’’ following the definition of fund share a dispute as to the Commission’s BILLING CODE 8011–01–P in Article I, Section 1, of OCC’s By- 2 jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction in the Laws. Under this proposed rule case of security futures over derivatives change, OCC would (i) clear and treat as based on ETFS Physical Swiss Gold SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE securities options any option contracts COMMISSION Shares or ETFS Physical Silver Shares. on ETFS Physical Swiss Gold Shares OCC also states that the proposed rule [Release No. 34–61254; File No. SR–OCC– and ETFS Physical Silver Shares that change is not inconsistent with OCC’s 2009–20] are traded on securities exchanges and By-Laws and Rules. (ii) clear and treat as security futures Self-Regulatory Organizations; The any futures contracts on ETFS Physical B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Options Clearing Corporation; Notice Swiss Gold Shares and ETFS Physical Statement on Burden on Competition of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Silver Shares. OCC does not believe that the Relating to ETFS Physical Swiss Gold In its capacity as a ‘‘derivatives proposed rule change would impose any Shares and ETFS Physical Silver clearing organization’’ registered as such burden on competition. Shares with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’), OCC is filing this C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s December 29, 2009. proposed rule change for prior approval Statement on Comments on the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the by the CFTC pursuant to provisions of Proposed Rule Change Received From 1 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, notice the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) Members, Participants or Others is hereby given that on December 14, in order to foreclose any potential Written comments were not and are 2009, The Options Clearing Corporation liability under the CEA based on an not intended to be solicited with respect (‘‘OCC’’) filed with the Securities and argument that OCC’s clearing of such to the proposed rule change and none Exchange Commission the proposed options as securities options or the rule change as described in Items I, II, have been received. and III below, which Items have been 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57895 (May III. Date of Effectiveness of the prepared primarily by OCC. The 30, 2008), 73 FR 32066 (June 5, 2008), and CFTC Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission is publishing this notice to Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing of Commission Action solicit comments on the proposed rule Certain Products Related to SPDR Gold Trust Shares, 73 FR 31981 (June 5, 2008) (orders change from interested persons. approving a proposed rule change clarifying that Within thirty-five days of the date of options and securities futures on SPDR Gold Shares publication of this notice in the Federal I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s are included in the definition of ‘‘fund share’’ in Register or within such longer period (i) Statement of the Terms of the Substance OCC’s rules); Securities Exchange Act Release No. as the Commission may designate up to of the Proposed Rule Change 59054 (Dec. 4, 2008), 73 FR 75159 (Dec. 10, 2008) and CFTC Order Exempting the Trading and ninety days of such date if it finds such The proposed rule change would Clearing of Certain Products Related to iShares longer period to be appropriate and clarify that the term ‘‘fund share’’ COMEX Gold Trust Shares and iShares Silver Trust publishes its reasons for so finding, or includes any option or any futures Shares, 73 FR 79830 (Dec. 3, 2008) (orders (ii) as to which the self-regulatory approving proposed rule change adding options and security futures on iShares COMEX Gold Shares 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). and iShares Silver Shares to OCC’s interpretation of 3 Supra note 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). ‘‘fund share’’). 4 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

organization consents, the Commission available publicly. All submission II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s will: should refer to File No. SR–OCC–2009– Statement of the Purpose of, and (A) by order approve the proposed 20 and should be submitted on or before Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule rule change or January 29, 2010. Change (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change For the Commission by the Division of In its filing with the Commission, the should be disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated self-regulatory organization included authority.5 statements concerning the purpose of, IV. Solicitation of Comments Florence E. Harmon, and basis for, the proposed rule change Interested persons are invited to Deputy Secretary. and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text submit written data, views and [FR Doc. 2010–69 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] arguments concerning the foregoing, of those statements may be examined at including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the places specified in Item IV below. change is consistent with the Act. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, Comments may be submitted by any of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE of the most significant parts of such the following methods: COMMISSION statements. Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet [Release No. 34–61265; File No. SR– A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ NYSEAmex–2009–96) Statement of the Purpose of, and the rules/sro.shtml); or Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule • Send an e-mail to rule- Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Change [email protected]. Please include File Amex LLC; Notice of Filing and 1. Purpose No. SR–OCC–2009–20 on the subject Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed line. Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex NYSE Amex Equities Rule Equities Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) To Extend 123C(8)(a)(1) allows the Exchange to Paper Comments the Operation of the Extreme Order temporarily suspend certain rule • Send paper comments in triplicate Imbalances Pilot requirements at the close when extreme to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, order imbalances may cause significant Securities and Exchange Commission, December 31, 2009. dislocation to the closing price. The rule has operated on a pilot basis since April Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Washington, DC 20549–1090. 2009 (‘‘Extreme Order Imbalances Pilot’’ Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the or ‘‘Pilot’’).3 Through this filing, NYSE All submissions should refer to File No. 1 2 ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, Amex proposes to extend the Pilot until SR–OCC–2009–20. This file number notice is hereby given that on December should be included on the subject line the earlier of Securities and Exchange 24, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (the if e-mail is used. To help the Commission approval to make such ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE Amex’’) filed with 4 Commission process and review your Pilot permanent or March 1, 2010. the Securities and Exchange comments more efficiently, please use ‘‘ ’’ Background only one method. The Commission will Commission (the Commission ) the post all comments on the Commission’s proposed rule change as described in Pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rule Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Items I and II below, which Items have 123C(8)(a)(1), the Exchange may rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the been prepared by the Exchange. The suspend NYSE Amex Equities Rules 52 submission, all subsequent Commission is publishing this notice to (Hours of Operation) to resolve an amendments, all written statements solicit comments on the proposed rule extreme order imbalance that may result with respect to the proposed rule change from interested persons. in a closing price dislocation at the change that are filed with the close as a result of an order entered into I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Exchange systems, or represented to a Commission, and all written Statement of the Terms of Substance of communications relating to the DMM orally at or near the close. The the Proposed Rule Change proposed rule change between the provisions of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) operate as the Extreme Commission and any person, other than The Exchange proposes to amend Order Imbalance Pilot. those that may be withheld from the NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) As a condition of the approval to public in accordance with the to extend the operation of the pilot to operate the Pilot, the Exchange provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be temporarily suspend certain NYSE committed to provide the Commission available for inspection and copying in Amex Equities Rule requirements the Commission’s Public Reference with information regarding: (i) How relating to the closing of securities on often a Rule 52 temporary suspension Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, the Exchange until the earlier of DC 20549, on official business days pursuant to the Pilot was invoked Securities and Exchange Commission between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the six months following its approval to make such pilot permanent Copies of such filing also will be approval; and (ii) the Exchange’s available for inspection and copying at or March 1, 2010. The text of the determination as to how to proceed with OCC’s principal office and on OCC’s proposed rule change is available at the technical modifications to reconfigure Web site at http://www.theocc.com/ Exchange, the Commission’s Public Exchange systems to accept orders publications/rules/proposed_changes/ Reference Room, and http:// electronically after 4 p.m. proposed_changes.jspU. All comments www.nyse.com. received will be posted without change; 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59755 the Commission does not edit personal (April 13, 2009), 74 FR 18009 (April 20, 2009) (SR– NYSEALTR–2009–15). 5 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). identifying information from 4 The Exchange notes that parallel changes are submissions. You should submit only 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). proposed to be made to the rules of New York Stock information that you wish to make 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Exchange LLC. See SR–NYSE–2009–131.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1095

The Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot is accept orders electronically after 4 p.m. Commission may designate, if scheduled to end operation on The Exchange therefore requests an consistent with the protection of December 31, 2009.5 The Exchange is extension from the current expiration investors and the public interest, the currently preparing a rule filing seeking date of December 31, 2009, until the proposed rule change has become permission to make the provisions of earlier of Securities and Exchange effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) the Pilot permanent with certain Commission approval to make such of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) modifications but does not expect that Pilot permanent or March 1, 2010. thereunder. filing to be completed and approved by A proposed rule change filed under the Commission before December 31, 2. Statutory Basis Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not 2009. The basis under the Act for this become operative prior to 30 days after proposed rule change is the requirement the date of the filing.9 However, Proposal To Extend the Operation of the under Section 6(b)(5) 6 that an Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii), the Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot have rules that are designed to promote Commission may designate a shorter The Exchange established the Extreme just and equitable principles of trade, to time if such action is consistent with the Order Imbalance Pilot to create a remove impediments to and perfect the protection of investors and the public mechanism for ensuring a fair and mechanism of a free and open market interest. The Exchange requested that orderly close when interest is received and a national market system and, in the Commission waive the 30-day at or near the close that could negatively general, to protect investors and the operative delay, as specified in Rule affect the closing transaction. The public interest. The Exchange believes 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),10 which would make the Exchange believes that this tool has that the instant filing is consistent with rule change operative immediately. The proved very useful to resolve an extreme these principles. Specifically an Exchange believes that continuation of order imbalance that may result in a extension will allow the Exchange to: (i) the Pilot does not burden competition closing price dislocation at the close as Prepare and submit a filing to make the and would operate to protect investors a result of an order entered into provisions governing the Extreme Order and the public interest by ensuring that Exchange systems, or represented to a Imbalance Pilot permanent; (ii) have the closing price at the Exchange is not DMM orally at or near the close. such filing complete the public notice significantly dislocated from the last As the Exchange has previously and comment period; and (iii) complete sale price by virtue of an extreme order stated, NYSE Amex Equities Rule the 19b–4 approval process. The rule imbalance at or near the close. 123C(8) will be invoked to attract operates to protect investors and the The Commission believes that offsetting interest in rare circumstances public interest by ensuring that the waiving the 30-day operative delay is where there exists an extreme imbalance closing price at the Exchange is not consistent with the protection of at the close such that a DMM is unable significantly dislocated from the last investors and the public interest to close the security without sale price by virtue of an extreme order because it would allow the Pilot to significantly dislocating the price. This imbalance at or near the close. continue without interruption while the is evidenced by the fact that during the Exchange works towards submitting a course of the Pilot, the Exchange B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s separate proposal to make the Pilot invoked the provisions of NYSE Amex Statement on Burden on Competition permanent. Accordingly, the Equities Rule 123C(8), including the The Exchange does not believe that Commission designates the proposed provisions of the Extreme Order the proposed rule change will impose rule change as operative upon filing Imbalance Pilot pursuant to NYSE any burden on competition that is not with the Commission.11 Amex Equities Rule 123C(8)(a)(1), in necessary or appropriate in furtherance At any time within 60 days of the only two securities on June 26, 2009, the of the purposes of the Act. filing of the proposed rule change, the date of the annual rebalancing of Russell Commission may summarily abrogate Indexes. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s such rule change if it appears to the In addition, during the operation of Statement on Comments on the Commission that such action is the Pilot, the Exchange determined that Proposed Rule Change Received From necessary or appropriate in the public it would not be as onerous, as Members, Participants, or Others interest, for the protection of investors, previously believed, to modify No written comments were solicited or otherwise in furtherance of the Exchange systems to accept orders or received with respect to the proposed purposes of the Act.12 electronically after 4 p.m. The Exchange rule change. anticipates that such system IV. Solicitation of Comments modifications could [sic] be completed III. Date of Effectiveness of the Interested persons are invited to by December 31, 2009. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for submit written data, views, and Given the above, the Exchange Commission Action arguments concerning the foregoing, believes that provisions governing the The Exchange has filed the proposed including whether the proposed rule Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot should rule change pursuant to Section 9 be made permanent. Through this filing 7 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory the Exchange seeks to extend the 8 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder. Because the organization to give the Commission notice of its current operation of the Pilot in order to proposed rule change does not: (i) intent to file the proposed rule change, along with allow the Exchange to formally submit Significantly affect the protection of a brief description and text of the proposed rule a filing to the Commission to convert investors or the public interest; (ii) change, at least five business days prior to the date the provisions governing the Pilot to of filing of the proposed rule change, or such impose any significant burden on shorter time as designated by the Commission. permanent rules and complete the competition; and (iii) become operative NYSE Amex has satisfied this requirement. technological modifications required to prior to 30 days from the date on which 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). it was filed, or such shorter time as the 11 For purposes only of waiving the operative 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60808 delay for this proposal, the Commission has (October 9, 2009), 74 FR 53539 (October 19, 2009) considered the proposed rule’s impact on (SR–NYSEAmex–2009–70) (extending the operation 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See of the pilot from October 13, 2009 to December 31, 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 2009). 8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1096 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

change is consistent with the Act. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Comments may be submitted by any of COMMISSION Statement of the Purpose of, and the following methods: Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Electronic Comments [Release No. 34–61267; File No. SR– • Use the Commission’s Internet NYSEArca–2009–115] 1. Purpose comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Currently, Arca Securities is the rules/sro.shtml); or approved outbound order routing Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and • Send an e-mail to rule- facility of the Exchange.3 Arca Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed [email protected]. Please include File Securities is also the approved Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–96 on Rule Change Extending the Pilot outbound order routing facility of the the subject line. Period To Receive Inbound Routes of New York Stock Exchange LLC Equities Orders From Archipelago ‘‘ ’’ ‘‘ Paper Comments ( NYSE ) and NYSE Amex LLC ( NYSE Securities LLC Amex’’).4 The Exchange, through its • Send paper comments in triplicate wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca December 31, 2009. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Equities, Inc., has also been previously Securities and Exchange Commission, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the approved to receive inbound routes of 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the equities orders by Arca Securities in its 20549–1090. ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 capacity as an order routing facility of All submissions should refer to File notice is hereby given that, on December NYSE Amex and the NYSE.5 The Number SR–NYSEAmex-2009–96. This 22, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ Exchange’s authority to receive inbound file number should be included on the or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the routes of equities orders by Arca subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Securities and Exchange Commission Securities is subject to a pilot period Commission process and review your 6 (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule ending December 31, 2009. The comments more efficiently, please use change as described in Items I and II, Exchange hereby seeks to extend the only one method. The Commission will previously approved pilot period (with post all comments on the Commission’s below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The the attendant obligations and Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ conditions) for an additional 3 months, Commission is publishing this notice to rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the through March 31, 2010. submission,13 all subsequent solicit comments on the proposed rule amendments, all written statements change from interested persons. 2. Statutory Basis with respect to the proposed rule I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The proposed rule change is 7 change that are filed with the Statement of the Terms of Substance of consistent with Section 6(b) of the Commission, and all written the Proposed Rule Change Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the communications relating to the ‘‘Act’’), in general, and furthers the proposed rule change between the The Exchange proposes to extend the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 in Commission and any person, other than pilot period of the Exchange’s prior particular in that it is designed to those that may be withheld from the approvals to receive inbound routes of prevent fraudulent and manipulative public in accordance with the equities orders from Archipelago 3 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Securities LLC (‘‘Arca Securities’’), an See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53238 available for inspection and copying in (July 28, 2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (order NYSE Arca affiliated ETP Holder. A approving SR–NYSEArca–2006–13); see also, the Commission’s Public Reference copy of this filing is available on the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 Section on official business days Exchange’s Web site at http:// (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR–PCX–2005–90); see also, Securities between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. www.nyse.com, at the Exchange’s Copies of the filing will also be available Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), principal office and at the Commission’s 66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR–PCX–00–25); for inspection and copying at the Public Reference Room. see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 principal office of the Exchange. All (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, comments received will be posted II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 2008) (order approving NYSEArca–2008–90). without change; the Commission does 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 Statement of the Purpose of, and (April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice not edit personal identifying Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule of immediate effectiveness of SR–NYSE–2007–29); information from submissions. You Change see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release should submit only information that No. 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 In its filing with the Commission, the (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR–NYSE– you wish to make available publicly. All 2008–76). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. submissions should refer to File self-regulatory organization included 59009 (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–96 and statements concerning the purpose of, (December 2, 2008) (order approving SR– should be submitted on or before and basis for, the proposed rule change NYSEALTR–2008–07); see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release No. 59473 (February 27, January 29, 2010. and discussed any comments it received 2009) 74 FR 9853 (March 6, 2009) (order approving For the Commission, by the Division of on the proposed rule change. The text SR–NYSEALTR–2009–18). Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated of those statements may be examined at 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 authority.14 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, the places specified in Item IV below. 2008) (order approving NYSEArca–2008–90); see Florence E. Harmon, The Exchange has prepared summaries, also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release No. Deputy Secretary. set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 59010 (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73373 [FR Doc. 2010–73 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] of the most significant parts of such (December 2, 2008) (order approving SR– NYSEArca–2008–130). BILLING CODE 8011–01–P statements. 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60750 (September 30, 2009), 74 FR 52285 (October 7, 13 The text of the proposed rule change is 2009) (notice of immediate effectiveness of SR– available on the Commission’s Web site at http:// NYSEArca–2009–87). www.sec.gov. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1097

acts and practices, to promote just and 4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to All submissions should refer to File equitable principles of trade, to foster designate a shorter time if such action Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–115. This cooperation and coordination with is consistent with the protection of file number should be included on the persons engaged in facilitating investors and the public interest. The subject line if e-mail is used. To help the transactions in securities, and to remove Exchange has requested that the Commission process and review your impediments to and perfect the Commission waive the 30-day operative comments more efficiently, please use mechanism of a free and open market delay. The Exchange notes that the only one method. The Commission will and a national market system. proposal will allow the Exchange to post all comments on the Commission’s Specifically, the proposed rule change continue receiving inbound routes of Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ will allow the Exchange to continue equities orders from Arca Securities, in rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the receiving inbound routes of equities a manner consistent with prior submission, all subsequent orders from Arca Securities acting in its approvals and established protections, amendments, all written statements capacity as a facility of the NYSE and while also permitting the Exchange and with respect to the proposed rule NYSE Amex, in a manner consistent the Commission to assess the impact of change that are filed with the with prior approvals and established the pilot.14 The Commission believes Commission, and all written protections. The Exchange believes that that waiving the 30-day operative delay communications relating to the extending the previously approved pilot is consistent with the protection of proposed rule change between the period for three months will permit both investors and the public interest Commission and any person, other than the Exchange and the Commission to because such waiver would allow the those that may be withheld from the further assess the impact of the pilot period to be extended without public in accordance with the Exchange’s authority to receive direct interruption through March 31, 2010. provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be inbound routes of equities orders via For this reason, the Commission available for inspection and copying in Arca Securities (including the attendant designates the proposed rule change to the Commission’s Public Reference obligations and conditions).9 be operative upon filing with the Room on official business days between Commission.15 the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s At any time within 60 days of the of such filing also will be available for Statement on Burden on Competition filing of such proposed rule change the inspection and copying at the principal The Exchange does not believe that Commission may summarily abrogate office of the Exchange. All comments the proposed rule change will impose such rule change if it appears to the received will be posted without change; any burden on competition that is not Commission that such action is the Commission does not edit personal necessary or appropriate in furtherance necessary or appropriate in the public identifying information from of the purposes of the Act. interest, for the protection of investors submissions. You should submit only C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s or otherwise in furtherance of the information that you wish to make Statement on Comments on the purposes of the Act. available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR– Proposed Rule Change Received From IV. Solicitation of Comments Members, Participants, or Others NYSEArca–2009–115 and should be Interested persons are invited to submitted on or before January 29, 2010. No written comments were solicited submit written data, views, and or received with respect to the proposed For the Commission, by the Division of arguments concerning the foregoing, Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated rule change. including whether the proposed rule authority.16 III. Date of Effectiveness of the change is consistent with the Act. Florence E. Harmon, Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Comments may be submitted by any of Deputy Secretary. the following methods: Commission Action [FR Doc. 2010–75 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Because the foregoing rule change Electronic Comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P does not: (1) Significantly affect the • Use the Commission’s Internet protection of investors or the public comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ interest; (2) impose any significant rules/sro.shtml); or SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE burden on competition; and (3) become • Send an e-mail to rule- COMMISSION operative for 30 days after the date of [email protected]. Please include File [Release No. 34–61269; File No. SR– this filing, or such shorter time as the Number SR–NYSEArca–2009–115 on NYSEAmex–2009–91) Commission may designate, it has the subject line. become effective pursuant to Section Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Paper Comments 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b– Amex LLC; Notice of Filing and 4(f)(6) thereunder.11 • Send paper comments in triplicate Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed A proposed rule change filed under to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Rule Change Extending the Pilot 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become Securities and Exchange Commission, Period To Receive Inbound Routes of operative prior to 30 days after the date 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Orders From Archipelago Securities of filing.12 However, Rule 19b– 20549–1090. LLC December 31, 2009. 9 The Exchange is currently analyzing the proposed rule change, at least five business days 1 condition regarding non-public information and prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the system changes in order to better reflect the change, or such shorter time as designated by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the operation of Arca Securities. Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). requirement. notice is hereby given that, on December 13 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). Id. 22, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 14 See supra note 9 and accompanying text. 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory 15 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day organization submit to the Commission written operative delay, the Commission has considered the 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). along with a brief description and text of the and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1098 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Amex’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Exchange has also been previously B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Securities and Exchange Commission approved to receive inbound routes of Statement on Burden on Competition (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule orders by Arca Securities in its capacity The Exchange does not believe that change as described in Items I and II, as an order routing facility of NYSE the proposed rule change will impose below, which Items have been prepared Arca and the NYSE.5 The Exchange’s any burden on competition that is not by the self-regulatory organization. The authority to receive inbound routes of necessary or appropriate in furtherance Commission is publishing this notice to orders by Arca Securities is subject to a of the purposes of the Act. solicit comments on the proposed rule pilot period ending December 31, 2009.6 change from interested persons. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The Exchange hereby seeks to extend Statement on Comments on the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the previously approved pilot period Proposed Rule Change Received From Statement of the Terms of Substance of (with the attendant obligations and Members, Participants, or Others the Proposed Rule Change conditions) for an additional 3 months, through March 31, 2010. No written comments were solicited The Exchange proposes to extend the or received with respect to the proposed pilot period of the Exchange’s prior 2. Statutory Basis rule change. approvals to receive inbound routes of orders from Archipelago Securities LLC The proposed rule change is III. Date of Effectiveness of the (‘‘Arca Securities’’), an NYSE Amex consistent with Section 6(b) 7 of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for affiliated member. A copy of this filing Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Commission Action is available on the Exchange’s Web site ‘‘Act’’), in general, and furthers the Because the foregoing rule change at http://www.nyse.com, at the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 in does not: (1) Significantly affect the Exchange’s principal office and at the particular in that it is designed to protection of investors or the public Commission’s Public Reference Room. prevent fraudulent and manipulative interest; (2) impose any significant II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s acts and practices, to promote just and burden on competition; and (3) become Statement of the Purpose of, and equitable principles of trade, to foster operative for 30 days after the date of Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule cooperation and coordination with this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has Change persons engaged in facilitating become effective pursuant to Section transactions in securities, and to remove In its filing with the Commission, the 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b– self-regulatory organization included impediments to and perfect the 4(f)(6) thereunder.11 statements concerning the purpose of, mechanism of a free and open market A proposed rule change filed under and basis for, the proposed rule change and a national market system. 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become and discussed any comments it received Specifically, the proposed rule change operative prior to 30 days after the date on the proposed rule change. The text will allow the Exchange to continue of filing.12 However, Rule 19b– of those statements may be examined at receiving inbound routes of equities 4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to the places specified in Item IV below. orders from Arca Securities acting in its designate a shorter time if such action The Exchange has prepared summaries, capacity as a facility of the NYSE and is consistent with the protection of set forth in sections A, B, and C below, NYSE Arca, in a manner consistent with investors and the public interest. The of the most significant parts of such prior approvals and established Exchange has requested that the statements. protections. The Exchange believes that Commission waive the 30-day operative A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s extending the previously approved pilot delay. The Exchange notes that the Statement of the Purpose of, and period for three months will permit both proposal will allow the Exchange to Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule the Exchange and the Commission to continue receiving inbound routes of Change further assess the impact of the equities orders from Arca Securities, in a manner consistent with prior 1. Purpose Exchange’s authority to receive direct inbound routes of equities orders via approvals and established protections, while also permitting the Exchange and Currently, Arca Securities is the Arca Securities (including the attendant the Commission to assess the impact of approved outbound order routing obligations and conditions).9 facility of the Exchange.3 Arca the pilot.14 The Commission believes Securities is also the approved that waiving the 30-day operative delay 2005) (SR–PCX–2005–90); see also, Securities is consistent with the protection of outbound order routing facility of the Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) and 66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR–PCX–00–25); investors and the public interest NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’).4 The see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 because such waiver would allow the (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, pilot period to be extended without 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59009 2008) (order approving NYSEArca–2008–90). interruption through March 31, 2010. (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2, 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 For this reason, the Commission 2008) (order approving SR–NYSEALTR–2008–07); (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release 2008) (order approving SR–Amex–2008–62). See 10 No. 59473 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR 9853 (March also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 6, 2009) (order approving SR–NYSEALTR–2009– (October 1, 2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 18). (order approving SR–AMEX–2008–63). 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 4 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60751 organization submit to the Commission written (April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice (September 30, 2009), 74 FR 51630 (October 7, notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, of immediate effectiveness of SR–NYSE–2007–29); 2009) (notice of immediate effectiveness of SR– along with a brief description and text of the see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release NYSEAmex–2009–67). No. 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 proposed rule change, at least five business days 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR–NYSE– prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 8 2008–76). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). change, or such shorter time as designated by the 53238 (July 28, 2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) 9 The Exchange is currently analyzing the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this (order approving SR–NYSEArca–2006–13); see also, condition regarding non-public information and requirement. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 system changes in order to better reflect the 13 Id. (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, operation of Arca Securities. 14 See supra note 9 and accompanying text.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1099

designates the proposed rule change to office of the Exchange. All comments proposed rule change is available at the be operative upon filing with the received will be posted without change; Exchange, the Commission’s Public Commission.15 the Commission does not edit personal Reference Room, and http:// At any time within 60 days of the identifying information from www.nyse.com. filing of such proposed rule change the submissions. You should submit only II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission may summarily abrogate information that you wish to make Statement of the Purpose of, and such rule change if it appears to the available publicly. All submissions Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Commission that such action is should refer to File Number SR– Change necessary or appropriate in the public NYSEAmex–2009–91 and should be interest, for the protection of investors submitted on or before January 29, 2010. In its filing with the Commission, the or otherwise in furtherance of the For the Commission, by the Division of Exchange included statements purposes of the Act. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated concerning the purpose of, and basis for, 16 the proposed rule change and discussed IV. Solicitation of Comments authority. Florence E. Harmon, any comments it received on the Interested persons are invited to Deputy Secretary. proposed rule change. The text of those submit written data, views, and statements may be examined at the [FR Doc. 2010–77 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] arguments concerning the foregoing, places specified in Item IV below. The including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Exchange has prepared summaries, set change is consistent with the Act. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of Comments may be submitted by any of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the most significant parts of such the following methods: COMMISSION statements. Electronic Comments [Release No. 34–61272; File No. SR– A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Use the Commission’s Internet NYSEAmex–2009–99] Statement of the Purpose of, and comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule rules/sro.shtml); or Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice Change of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness • Send an e-mail to rule- 1. Purpose [email protected]. Please include File of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–91 on Amex LLC Deleting Rule 445—NYSE The purpose of the proposed rule the subject line. Amex Equities and Adopting New Rule changes is to delete Rule 445—NYSE 3310—NYSE Amex Equities To Amex Equities (Anti-Money Laundering Paper Comments Correspond With Rule Changes Filed Compliance Program) and adopt new • Send paper comments in triplicate by the Financial Industry Regulatory Rule 3310—NYSE Amex Equities (Anti- to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Authority, Inc. Money Laundering Compliance Program) to correspond with rule Securities and Exchange Commission, December 31, 2009. 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC changes filed by FINRA and approved Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 20549–1090. by the Commission. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the All submissions should refer to File ‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3 Background Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–91. This notice is hereby given that on December On July 30, 2007, FINRA’s file number should be included on the 31, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (the predecessor, the National Association of subject line if e-mail is used. To help the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE Amex’’) filed with Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’), and Commission process and review your the Securities and Exchange NYSE Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NYSER’’) comments more efficiently, please use Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the consolidated their member firm only one method. The Commission will proposed rule change as described in regulation operations into a combined post all comments on the Commission’s Items I and II below, which Items have organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ been substantially prepared by the 17d–2 under the Act, the New York rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Exchange. The Commission is Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’), NYSER submission, all subsequent publishing this notice to solicit and FINRA entered into an agreement amendments, all written statements comments on the proposed rule change (the ‘‘Agreement’’) to reduce regulatory with respect to the proposed rule from interested persons. duplication for their members by change that are filed with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s allocating to FINRA certain regulatory Commission, and all written responsibilities for certain NYSE rules communications relating to the Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change and rule interpretations (‘‘FINRA proposed rule change between the Incorporated NYSE Rules’’). The Commission and any person, other than The Exchange proposes to delete Rule Exchange became a party to the those that may be withheld from the 445—NYSE Amex Equities and adopt Agreement effective December 15, public in accordance with the new Rule 3310—NYSE Amex Equities 2008.5 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be to correspond with rule changes filed by available for inspection and copying in the Financial Industry Regulatory 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 the Commission’s Public Reference Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) and approved (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (order Room on official business days between by the Commission.4 The text of the approving the Agreement); 56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR–NASD–2007–054) (order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE of such filing also will be available for 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Rules as ‘‘Common Rules’’); and 60409 (July 30, 1 inspection and copying at the principal 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August 6, 2009) (order 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. approving the amended and restated Agreement, 15 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. adding NYSE Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) operative delay, the Commission has considered the 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 of the Agreement sets forth procedures regarding proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, (September 10, 2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE or NYSE Amex and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 2009) (order approving SR–FINRA–2009–039). to the substance of any of the Common Rules.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1100 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

As part of its effort to reduce language as FINRA Rule 3310, except any burden on competition that is not regulatory duplication and relieve firms for substituting for or adding to, as necessary or appropriate in furtherance that are members of FINRA, NYSE and needed, the term ‘‘member organization’’ of the purposes of the Act. NYSE Amex of conflicting or for the term ‘‘member,’’ and making C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA corresponding technical changes that Statement on Comments on the is now engaged in the process of reflect the difference between NYSE Proposed Rule Change Received From reviewing and amending the NASD and Amex’s and FINRA’s membership Members, Participants, or Others FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in structures. In addition, in order to create a consolidated FINRA Supplementary Material .02 to proposed No written comments were solicited rulebook.6 Rule 3310, the Exchange added a cross- or received with respect to the proposed reference to Rule 416A—NYSE Amex rule change. Proposed Conforming Amendments to Equities to ensure that those Exchange NYSE Rules III. Date of Effectiveness of the members and member organizations that Proposed Rule Change and Timing for FINRA adopted, subject to certain are not FINRA members are required to Commission Action amendments, NASD Rule 3011 (Anti- update the contact information for anti- Money Laundering Compliance money laundering compliance The Exchange has filed the proposed Program) and related Interpretive personnel in accordance with NYSE rule change pursuant to Section 12 Material NASD IM–3011–1 and 3011–2 Amex Equities Rules. 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule 13 as consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 (Anti- Finally, in order to ensure that both 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder. Because the Money Laundering Compliance proposed Rule 3310—NYSE Amex proposed rule change does not: (i) Program), and deleted FINRA Equities and FINRA Rule 3310 are fully Significantly affect the protection of Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 (Anti- harmonized, the Exchange also proposes investors or the public interest; (ii) Money Laundering Compliance to add Supplementary Material .03 to impose any significant burden on Program) as duplicative of the new Rule 3310—NYSE Amex Equities to competition; and (iii) become operative Rule.7 provide that, for the purposes of the prior to 30 days from the date on which Because it is substantially similar to rule, the term ‘‘associated person of the it was filed, or such shorter time as the the provisions of FINRA Rule 3310, member or member organization’’ shall Commission may designate, if FINRA deleted FINRA Incorporated have the same meaning as the terms consistent with the protection of NYSE Rule 445. In particular, FINRA ‘‘person associated with a member’’ or investors and the public interest, the Incorporated NYSE Rule 445(1)–(5) are ‘‘associated person of a member’’ as proposed rule change has become substantially the same as consolidated defined in Article I (rr) of the FINRA By- effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) FINRA Rule 3310(a)–(e). In addition, Laws. of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) Supplementary Material .10 and .20 to thereunder. FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are 2. Statutory Basis A proposed rule change filed under substantially the same as The Exchange believes that the Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 14 normally does not Supplementary Material .01 to proposed rule change is consistent with become operative prior to 30 days after consolidated FINRA Rule 3310. Finally, Section 6(b) of the Act,10 in general, and the date of the filing. However, pursuant read together, part (4) and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),15 the Commission Supplementary Material .30 to FINRA of the Act,11 in particular, because it is may designate a shorter time if such Incorporated NYSE Rule 445 are designed to prevent fraudulent and action is consistent with the protection substantially the same as manipulative acts and practices, to of investors and the public interest. The Supplementary Material .02 to promote just and equitable principles of Exchange has asked the Commission to consolidated FINRA Rule 3310 with trade, to remove impediments to and waive the 30-day operative delay so that respect to the notification of AML perfect the mechanism of a free and the proposal may become operative 8 compliance person designations. open market and a national market immediately upon filing. The To harmonize the NYSE Amex system, and, in general, to protect Commission notes that the proposed Equities Rules with the approved investors and the public interest. rule change is substantially identical to consolidated FINRA Rules, the The Exchange believes that the a rule change proposed by FINRA and Exchange correspondingly proposes to proposed rule change supports the approved by the Commission after an delete Rule 445—NYSE Amex Equities objectives of the Act by providing opportunity for public comment, and and replace it with proposed Rule greater harmonization between NYSE does not raise any new substantive 3310—NYSE Amex Equities, which is Amex Equities Rules and FINRA Rules issues.16 For these reasons, the substantially similar to the new FINRA of similar purpose, resulting in less Commission believes that waiver of the 9 Rule. As proposed, Rule 3310—NYSE burdensome and more efficient 30-day operative delay is consistent Amex Equities adopts the same regulatory compliance for joint with the protection of investors and the members. To the extent the Exchange’s public interest because it will promote 6 FINRA’s rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated proposal differs from FINRA’ version of 12 NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA Rules. the Rules, such changes are technical in 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to nature and do not change the substance 13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). those members of FINRA that are also members of of the proposed NYSE Amex Equities 14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). the NYSE, while the consolidated FINRA Rules 15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule apply to all FINRA members. For more information Rules. 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s organization to submit to the Commission written see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008. notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60645 Statement on Burden on Competition along with a brief description and text of the (September 10, 2009), 74 FR 47630 (September 16, The Exchange does not believe that proposed rule change, at least five business days 2009). prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 8 Id. the proposed rule change will impose change, or such shorter time as designated by the 9 NYSE has submitted a companion rule filing Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this amending its rules in accordance with FINRA’s rule 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). requirement. changes. See SR–NYSE–2009–134. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 16 See supra note 7.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1101

greater harmonization between NYSE provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Amex Equities Rules and FINRA Rules available for inspection and copying in Statement of the Terms of Substance of of similar purpose, resulting in less the Commission’s Public Reference the Proposed Rule Change burdensome and more efficient Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, The Exchange proposes to amend regulatory compliance for joint members DC 20549, on official business days Chapter V, Section 6 (Minimum Trading and greater harmonization between between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Increments) of the Rules of the Boston NYSE Amex Equities Rules and FINRA Copies of the filing will also be available Options Exchange Group, LLC (‘‘BOX’’). Rules. Therefore, the Commission for inspection and copying at the The text of the proposed rule change is designates the proposed rule change NYSE’s principal office and on its 17 available from the principal office of the effective and operative upon filing. Internet Web site at http:// Exchange, on the Exchange’s Internet At any time within 60 days of the www.nyse.com. All comments received Web site at http:// filing of the proposed rule change, the will be posted without change; the nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/ Commission may summarily abrogate Commission does not edit personal NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/, at the such rule change if it appears to the identifying information from Commission’s Public Reference Room, Commission that such action is submissions. You should submit only and also on the Commission’s Web site necessary or appropriate in the public information that you wish to make at http://www.sec.gov. interest, for the protection of investors, available publicly. All submissions or otherwise in furtherance of the should refer to File Number SR– II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s purposes of the Act. NYSEAmex–2009–99 and should be Statement of the Purpose of, and submitted on or before January 29, 2010. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule IV. Solicitation of Comments For the Commission, by the Division of Change Interested persons are invited to Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated In its filing with the Commission, the submit written data, views, and authority.18 self-regulatory organization included arguments concerning the foregoing, Florence E. Harmon, statements concerning the purpose of, including whether the proposed rule Deputy Secretary. and basis for, the proposed rule change change is consistent with the Act. [FR Doc. 2010–79 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] and discussed any comments it received Comments may be submitted by any of BILLING CODE 8011–01–P on the proposed rule change. The text the following methods: of these statements may be examined at Electronic Comments the places specified in Item IV below. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The self-regulatory organization has • Use the Commission’s Internet COMMISSION prepared summaries, set forth in comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Sections A, B, and C below, of the most rules/sro.shtml); or [Release No. 34–61261; File No. SR–BX– significant aspects of such statements. • Send an e-mail to rule- 2009–086] [email protected]. Please include File A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–99 on Self-Regulatory Organizations; Statement of the Purpose of, and the subject line. NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule and Immediate Effectiveness of Change Paper Comments Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 1. Purpose • Send paper comments in triplicate Minimum Trading Increments on the to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Boston Options Exchange Facility On October 19, 2009 the Exchange Securities and Exchange Commission, submitted a proposed rule change to 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC December 30, 2009. amend Chapter V, Section 33 (Penny 20549–1090. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Pilot Program) of the BOX Rules to (i) Securities Exchange Act of 1934 extend the Penny Pilot Program in All submissions should refer to File 1 2 Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–99. This (‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, options classes (‘‘Penny Pilot Program’’ file number should be included on the notice is hereby given that on December or ‘‘Pilot’’) previously approved by the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 24, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the Securities and Exchange Commission Commission process and review your ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities (‘‘Commission’’) through December 31, comments more efficiently, please use and Exchange Commission 2010; (ii) expand the number of classes only one method. The Commission will (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule included in the Pilot; and (iii) replace post all comments on the Commission’s change as described in Items I, II, and on a semi-annual basis any Pilot Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ III below, which Items have been Program classes that have been rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the prepared by the self-regulatory delisted.5 submission, all subsequent organization. The Exchange filed the The Exchange now proposes to amendments, all written statements proposed rule change pursuant to designate two Penny Pilot Program Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,3 and Rule classes as eligible to quote and trade all with respect to the proposed rule 4 change that are filed with the 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder, which renders options contracts in one cent Commission, and all written the proposal effective upon filing with increments, regardless of premium communications relating to the the Commission. The Commission is value. Specifically, the Exchange proposed rule change between the publishing this notice to solicit proposes to so designate SPY (SPDR Commission and any person, other than comments on the proposed rule from S&P 500 ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell those that may be withheld from the interested persons. 2000 Index Fund). In selecting these public in accordance with the classes the Exchange considered, among 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). other things, that these symbols are (a) 1 17 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). operative delay, the Commission has considered the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60886 proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). (October 27, 2009), 74 FR 56897 (November 3, 2009) and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). (SR–BX–2009–067).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

among the most actively traded classes 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act 9 and Rule Commission process and review your nationally, with a wide array of investor 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder 10 and does not: comments more efficiently, please use interest, (b) have more series trading at (i) Significantly affect the protection of only one method. The Commission will a premium between $3 and $10, and (c) investors or the public interest; (ii) post all comments on the Commission’s are trading at prices that are neither impose any significant burden on Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ extremely low nor high, but are competition and; (iii) become operative rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the generally trading between $15–$50. The for 30 days from the date on which it submission, all subsequent Exchange believes that classes that meet was filed, or such shorter time as the amendments, all written statements these criteria benefit the most from the Commission may designate if consistent with respect to the proposed rule ability to quote and trade all options with the protection of investors and the change that are filed with the series in penny increments. public interest. Commission, and all written This proposal is based on a recent The Commission recently granted communications relating to the Commission-approved proposal of the approval for a similar filing proposed by proposed rule change between the NYSEArca exchange.6 The Exchange the NYSEArca.11 The Exchange believes Commission and any person, other than proposes to designate SPY and IWM as that this proposed rule change, which is those that may be withheld from the eligible to quote and trade all options essential for competitive purposes and public in accordance with the contracts in one cent increments as of to promote a free and open market for provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be February 1, 2010. This date corresponds the benefit of investors, does not raise available for inspection and copying in with the second phase-in date for any new, unique or substantive issues the Commission’s Public Reference additional classes in the Penny Pilot from those raised in the approved Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, Program. NYSEArca proposal. DC 20549, on official business days 2. Statutory Basis At any time within 60 days of the between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. filing of the proposed rule change, the Copies of such filing also will be The Exchange believes that the Commission may summarily abrogate available for inspection and copying at proposal is consistent with the such rule change if it appears to the the principal office of the Exchange. All requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,7 Commission that such action is comments received will be posted in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the necessary or appropriate in the public without change; the Commission does Act,8 in particular, in that it is designed interest, for the protection of investors, not edit personal identifying to foster cooperation and coordination or otherwise in furtherance of the information from submissions. You with persons engaged in regulating, purposes of the Act. should submit only information that clearing, settling, processing you wish to make available publicly. All information with respect to, and IV. Solicitation of Comments submissions should refer to File No. facilitating transactions in securities, to Interested persons are invited to SR–BX–2009–086 and should be remove impediments to and perfect the submit written data, views, and submitted on or before January 29, 2010. mechanism for a free and open market arguments concerning the foregoing, For the Commission, by the Division of and a national market system and, in including whether the proposed rule Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated general, to protect investors and the change is consistent with the Act. authority.12 public interest. In particular, the Comments may be submitted by any of Florence E. Harmon, Exchange believes that allowing market the following methods: Deputy Secretary. participants to quote in smaller increments reduces spreads, thereby Electronic Comments [FR Doc. 2010–71 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P lowering costs to investors. • Use the Commission’s Internet B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Statement on Burden on Competition rules/sro.shtml); or SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE • Send an e-mail to rule- The Exchange does not believe that COMMISSION [email protected]. Please include File the proposed rule change will impose [Release No. 34–61271; File No. SR–BX– Number SR–BX–2009–086 on the any burden on competition that is not 2009–085] subject line. necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Paper Comments Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Send paper comments in triplicate and Immediate Effectiveness of Statement on Comments on the to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Proposed Rule Change Extending the Proposed Rule Change Received From Securities and Exchange Commission, Pilot Period To Receive Inbound Members, Participants or Others 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC Routes of Orders From Nasdaq The Exchange has neither solicited 20549–1090. Execution Services All submissions should refer to File nor received comments on the proposed December 31, 2009. rule change. Number SR–BX–2009–086. This file 1 number should be included on the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the III. Date of Effectiveness of the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 Commission Action 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). notice is hereby given that, on December This proposed rule change is filed 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, as required 23, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the pursuant to paragraph (A) of section by Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has submitted ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BX’’) filed with the to the Commission written notice of its intent to file Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, along with a brief (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 description and text of the proposed rule change, (November 24, 2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, at least five business days prior to the date of filing 2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–44). of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). as designated by the Commission. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 11 See supra note 6. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1103

change as described in Items I and II, also has been previously approved to C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s below, which Items have been prepared receive inbound routes of equities Statement on Comments on the by BX. BX has designated the proposed orders by NES in its capacity as an order Proposed Rule Change Received From rule change as constituting a non- routing facility of NASDAQ.5 The Members, Participants, or Others controversial rule change under Rule Exchange’s authority to receive inbound 3 No written comments were either 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act, which routes of equities orders by NES is solicited or received. renders the proposal effective upon subject to a pilot period ending filing with the Commission. The December 23, 2009. The Exchange III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission is publishing this notice to hereby seeks to extend the previously solicit comments on the proposed rule Commission Action approved pilot period (with the change from interested persons. attendant obligations and conditions) Because the foregoing rule change I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s for an additional 3 months, through does not: (1) Significantly affect the Statement of the Terms of Substance of March 23, 2010. protection of investors or the public the Proposed Rule Change interest; (2) impose any significant 2. Statutory Basis burden on competition; and (3) become BX submits this proposed rule change operative for 30 days after the date of to extend the pilot period of BX’s prior The Exchange believes that the approval to receive inbound routes of this filing, or such shorter time as the proposed rule change is consistent with Commission may designate, it has equities orders from Nasdaq Execution the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,6 Services, LLC (‘‘NES’’) through March become effective pursuant to Section in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b– 23, 2010. 7 the Act, in particular, in that the 4(f)(6) thereunder.9 II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s proposal is designed to prevent A proposed rule change filed under Statement of the Purpose of, and the fraudulent and manipulative acts and 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule practices, to promote just and equitable operative prior to 30 days after the date Change principles of trade, to foster cooperation of filing.10 However, Rule 19b– In its filing with the Commission, BX and coordination with persons engaged 4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to included statements concerning the in regulating, clearing, settling, designate a shorter time if such action purpose of and basis for the proposed processing information with respect to, is consistent with the protection of rule change and discussed any and facilitating transactions in investors and the public interest. BX has comments it received on the proposed securities, to remove impediments to requested that the Commission waive rule change. The text of these statements and perfect the mechanism of a free and the 30-day operative delay. BX notes may be examined at the places specified open market and a national market that the proposal will allow the in Item IV below. BX has prepared system, and, in general, to protect Exchange to continue receiving inbound summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, investors and the public interest. routes of equities orders from NES, in a and C below, of the most significant Specifically, the proposed rule change manner consistent with prior approvals aspects of such statements. will allow the Exchange to continue and established protections, while also permitting the Exchange and the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s receiving inbound routes of equities orders from NES acting in its capacity Commission to assess the impact of the Statement of the Purpose of, and pilot.12 The Commission believes that as a facility of Nasdaq, in a manner Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with prior approvals and Change consistent with the protection of established protections. The Exchange 1. Purpose investors and the public interest believes that extending the previously because such waiver would allow the Currently, NES is the approved approved pilot period for three months outbound routing facility of the pilot period to be extended without is of sufficient length to permit both the interruption through March 23, 2010. NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Exchange and the Commission to assess (‘‘NASDAQ’’) for cash equities, For this reason, the Commission the impact of the Exchange’s authority designates the proposed rule change to providing outbound routing from to receive direct inbound routes of NASDAQ to other market centers.4 BX be operative upon filing with the equities orders via NES (including the Commission.13 attendant obligations and conditions). 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). At any time within 60 days of the 4 filing of such proposed rule change the See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50311 B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s (September 3, 2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10, Commission may summarily abrogate 2004) (Order Granting Application for a Temporary Statement on Burden on Competition Conditional Exemption Pursuant To Section 36(a) 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). of the Exchange Act by the National Association of BX does not believe that the proposed 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to the Acquisition rule change will impose any burden on 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule of an ECN by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.) and competition not necessary or 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory 13, 2005) (SRNASD–2005–128) (Order Approving a appropriate in furtherance of the organization submit to the Commission written Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules purposes of the Act. notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, Governing the Operation of the INET System). See along with a brief description and text of the also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58752 proposed rule change, at least five business days (October 8, 2008), 73 FR 61181 (October 15, 2008) (October 17, 2006), 71 FR 62325 (October 24, 2006) prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule (SR–NASDAQ–2008–079); 58135 (July 10, 2008), 73 (SR–NASDAQ 2006–043); 54271 (August 3, 2006), change, or such shorter time as designated by the FR 40898 (July 16, 2008) (SR–NASDAQ–2008–061); 71 FR 45876 (August 10, 2006) (SR–NASDAQ– Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this 58069 (June 30, 2008), 73 FR 39360 (July 9, 2008) 2006–027); and 54155 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41291 requirement. (SR–NASDAQ–2008–054); 56708 (October 26, (July 20, 2006) (SR–NASDAQ–2006–001). 11 Id. 2007), 72 FR 61925 (November 1, 2007) (SR– 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 12 See supra at II.A.2. NASDAQ–2007–078); 56867 (November 29, 2007), (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 13 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day 72 FR 69263 (December 7, 2007) (SR–NASDAQ– 2008). operative delay, the Commission has considered the 2007–065); 55335 (February 23, 2007), 72 FR 9369 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, (March 1, 2007) (SR–NASDAQ–2007–005); 54613 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

such rule change if it appears to the For the Commission, by the Division of The Exchange has prepared summaries, Commission that such action is Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated set forth in sections A, B, and C below, necessary or appropriate in the public authority.14 of the most significant parts of such interest, for the protection of investors Florence E. Harmon, statements. Deputy Secretary. or otherwise in furtherance of the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s purposes of the Act. [FR Doc. 2010–78 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Statement of the Purpose of, and IV. Solicitation of Comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 1. Purpose arguments concerning the foregoing, COMMISSION Currently, Arca Securities is the including whether the proposed rule [Release No. 34–61268; File No. SR–NYSE– approved outbound order routing change is consistent with the Act. 2009–128] facility of the Exchange.3 Arca Comments may be submitted by any of Securities is also the approved the following methods: Self-Regulatory Organizations; New outbound order routing facility of NYSE Electronic Comments York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Arca and NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amex’’).4 The Exchange has also been • Use the Commission’s Internet Proposed Rule Change Extending the previously approved to receive inbound comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Pilot Period To Receive Inbound routes of equities orders by Arca rules/sro.shtml); or Routes of Certain Equities Orders Securities in its capacity as an order • Send an e-mail to rule- From Archipelago Securities LLC routing facility of NYSE Arca and NYSE [email protected]. Please include File Amex.5 The Exchange’s authority to Number SR–BX–2009–085 on the December 31, 2009. receive inbound routes of equities 1 subject line. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the orders by Arca Securities is subject to a Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the pilot period ending December 31, 2009.6 Paper Comments 2 ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, The Exchange hereby seeks to extend • Send paper comments in triplicate notice is hereby given that, on December the previously approved pilot period to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 22, 2009, New York Stock Exchange (with the attendant obligations and Securities and Exchange Commission, LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed conditions) for an additional 3 months, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC with the Securities and Exchange through March 31, 2010. 20549–1090. Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 2. Statutory Basis All submissions should refer to File proposed rule change as described in Number SR–BX–2009–085. This file Items I and II, below, which Items have The proposed rule change is number should be included on the been prepared by the self-regulatory consistent with Section 6(b) 7 of the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the organization. The Commission is Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Commission process and review your publishing this notice to solicit ‘‘Act’’), in general, and furthers the comments more efficiently, please use comments on the proposed rule change only one method. The Commission will from interested persons. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 (April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice post all comments on the Commission’s I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s of immediate effectiveness of SR–NYSE–2007–29); Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Statement of the Terms of Substance of see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the Proposed Rule Change No. 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 submission, all subsequent (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR–NYSE– The Exchange proposes to extend the 2008–76). amendments, all written statements 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53238 with respect to the proposed rule pilot period of the Exchange’s prior approvals to receive inbound routes of (July 28, 2006), 71 FR 44758 (August 7, 2006) (order change that are filed with the approving SR–NYSEArca–2006–13); see also, Commission, and all written certain equities orders from Archipelago Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 ‘‘ ’’ (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, communications relating to the Securities LLC ( Arca Securities ), an NYSE affiliated member. The text of the 2005) (SR–PCX–2005–90); see also, Securities proposed rule change between the Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), Commission and any person, other than proposed rule change is available at the 66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR–PCX–00–25); those that may be withheld from the Exchange, the Commission’s Public see also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, public in accordance with the Reference Room, and http:// www.nyse.com. 2008) (order approving NYSEArca–2008–90). See provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59009 available for inspection and copying in II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s (November 24, 2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2, the Commission’s Public Reference 2008) (order approving SR–NYSEALTR–2008–07); Statement of the Purpose of, and see also, Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release Room on official business days between Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule No. 59473 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR 9853 (March the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies Change 6, 2009) (order approving SR–NYSEALTR–2009– of such filing also will be available for 18). In its filing with the Commission, the 5 inspection and copying at the principal See Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release self-regulatory organization included No. 58680 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 office of the Exchange. All comments statements concerning the purpose of, (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR–NYSE– received will be posted without change; and basis for, the proposed rule change 2008–76); see Securities Exchange Act Release No. the Commission does not edit personal 59011 (November 24, 2008) 73 FR 73360 (December and discussed any comments it received identifying information from 2, 2008) (order approving SR–NYSE–2008–122); see on the proposed rule change. The text also Securities and [sic] Exchange Act Release No. submissions. You should submit only of those statements may be examined at 60255 (July 7, 2009) 74 FR 34065 (July 14, 2009) information that you wish to make (order approving SR–NYSE–2009–58). the places specified in Item IV below. available publicly. All submissions 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60752 should refer to File Number SR–BX– (September 30, 2009), 74 FR 51641 (October 7, 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2009) (notice of immediate effectiveness of SR– 2009–085 and should be submitted on 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). NYSE–2009–101). or before January 29, 2010. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1105

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 in of filing.12 However, Rule 19b– Paper Comments particular in that it is designed to 4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to • prevent fraudulent and manipulative designate a shorter time if such action Send paper comments in triplicate acts and practices, to promote just and is consistent with the protection of to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, equitable principles of trade, to foster investors and the public interest. The Securities and Exchange Commission, cooperation and coordination with Exchange has requested that the 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC persons engaged in facilitating Commission waive the 30-day operative 20549–1090. transactions in securities, and to remove delay. The Exchange notes that the All submissions should refer to File impediments to and perfect the proposal will allow the Exchange to Number SR–NYSE–2009–128. This file mechanism of a free and open market continue receiving inbound routes of number should be included on the and a national market system. equities orders from Arca Securities, in subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Specifically, the proposed rule change a manner consistent with prior will allow the Exchange to continue approvals and established protections, Commission process and review your receiving inbound routes of equities while also permitting the Exchange and comments more efficiently, please use orders from Arca Securities acting in its the Commission to assess the impact of only one method. The Commission will capacity as a facility of the NYSE Arca the pilot.14 The Commission believes post all comments on the Commission’s and NYSE Amex, in a manner that waiving the 30-day operative delay Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ consistent with prior approvals and is consistent with the protection of rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the established protections. The Exchange investors and the public interest submission, all subsequent believes that extending the previously because such waiver would allow the amendments, all written statements approved pilot period for three months pilot period to be extended without with respect to the proposed rule will permit both the Exchange and the interruption through March 31, 2010. change that are filed with the Commission to further assess the impact For this reason, the Commission Commission, and all written of the Exchange’s authority to receive designates the proposed rule change to communications relating to the direct inbound routes of equities orders be operative upon filing with the proposed rule change between the via Arca Securities (including the Commission.15 Commission and any person, other than attendant obligations and conditions).9 At any time within 60 days of the those that may be withheld from the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s filing of such proposed rule change the public in accordance with the Statement on Burden on Competition Commission may summarily abrogate provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be such rule change if it appears to the available for inspection and copying in The Exchange does not believe that Commission that such action is the Commission’s Public Reference the proposed rule change will impose necessary or appropriate in the public Room on official business days between any burden on competition that is not interest, for the protection of investors the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies necessary or appropriate in furtherance or otherwise in furtherance of the of such filing also will be available for of the purposes of the Act. purposes of the Act. inspection and copying at the principal C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s IV. Solicitation of Comments office of the Exchange. All comments Statement on Comments on the received will be posted without change; Proposed Rule Change Received From Interested persons are invited to the Commission does not edit personal Members, Participants, or Others submit written data, views, and identifying information from arguments concerning the foregoing, No written comments were solicited submissions. You should submit only including whether the proposed rule information that you wish to make or received with respect to the proposed change is consistent with the Act. rule change. available publicly. All submissions Comments may be submitted by any of should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– III. Date of Effectiveness of the the following methods: 2009–128 and should be submitted on Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Electronic Comments or before January 29, 2010. Commission Action • For the Commission, by the Division of Because the foregoing rule change Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated does not: (1) Significantly affect the authority.16 protection of investors or the public rules/sro.shtml); or Florence E. Harmon, interest; (2) impose any significant • Send an e-mail to rule- burden on competition; and (3) become [email protected]. Please include File Deputy Secretary. operative for 30 days after the date of Number SR–NYSE–2009–128 on the [FR Doc. 2010–76 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] this filing, or such shorter time as the subject line. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b– 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory 11 organization submit to the Commission written 4(f)(6) thereunder. notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, A proposed rule change filed under along with a brief description and text of the 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become proposed rule change, at least five business days operative prior to 30 days after the date prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). requirement. 9 The Exchange is currently analyzing the 13 Id. condition regarding non-public information and 14 See supra note 9 and accompanying text. system changes in order to better reflect the 15 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operation of Arca Securities. operative delay, the Commission has considered the 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE will be sold annually to member IV. Solicitation of Comments COMMISSION organizations at a price per trading license to be established each year by Interested persons are invited to [Release No. 34–61266; File No. SR–NYSE– submit written data, views and 2009–130] the Exchange pursuant to a rule filing submitted to the Commission and that arguments concerning the foregoing, Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice the price per trading license will be including whether the proposed rule of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness published each year in the Exchange’s change is consistent with the Exchange of Proposed Rule Change by New York price list. The Exchange proposes to Act. Comments may be submitted by Stock Exchange LLC To Establish a establish a trading license fee for any of the following methods: calendar 2010 of $40,000. This is the Trading License Fee for 2010 Electronic Comments same as the trading license fee charged December 31, 2009. 4 in calendar 2009. • Use the Commission’s Internet Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 2. Statutory Basis comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ ‘‘ ’’ 2 3 rules/sro.shtml); or Act ), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, The Exchange believes that the • Send an e-mail to rule- notice is hereby given that on December proposed rule change is consistent with 23, 2009, New York Stock Exchange [email protected]. Please include File the provisions of Section 6 5 of the Act LLC (the ‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) in general and Section 6(b)(4) 6 in Number SR–NYSE–2009–130 on the filed with the Securities and Exchange particular, in that it is designed to subject line. Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the provide for the equitable allocation of proposed rule changes as described in Paper Comments reasonable dues, fees and other charges Items I, II, and III below, which items among its members and other persons • Send paper comments in triplicate have been prepared by the Exchange. using its facilities. The Exchange to Secretary, Securities and Exchange The Commission is publishing this believes that the proposal does not Commission, 100 F Street, NE., notice to solicit comments on the constitute an inequitable allocation of proposed rule change from interested Washington, DC 20549–1090. dues, fees and other charges, as all persons. member organizations will be charged All submissions should refer to File I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the same trading license fee. Number SR–NYSE–2009–130. This file Statement of the Terms of Substance of number should be included on the the Proposed Rule Change B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Statement on Burden on Competition Commission process and review your The Exchange proposes to establish a comments more efficiently, please use $40,000 trading license fee for calendar The Exchange does not believe that 2010. The text of the proposed rule the proposed rule change will impose only one method. The Commission will change is available on the Exchange’s any burden on competition that is not post all comments on the Commission’s Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the necessary or appropriate in furtherance Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, and of the purpose of the Act. rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,9 all subsequent at the Commission’s Public Reference C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Room. amendments, all written statements Statement on Comments on the with respect to the proposed rule II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Proposed Rule Change Received From change that are filed with the Members, Participants or Others Statement of the Purpose of, and Commission, and all written Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule communications relating to the Change Written comments were neither solicited nor received. proposed rule change between the In its filing with the Commission, the Commission and any person, other than III. Date of Effectiveness of the self-regulatory organization included those that may be withheld from the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for statements concerning the purpose of public in accordance with the Commission Action and basis for the proposed rule change provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be and discussed any comments it received The foregoing rule change is effective available for inspection and copying in on the proposed rule change. The text upon filing pursuant to Section the Commission’s Public Reference of these statements may be examined at 19(b)(3)(A) 7 of the Act and Rule 19b– Room, on official business days between the places specified in Item IV below. 4(f)(2) 8 thereunder. the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Copies of The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of At any time within 60 days of the the filing also will be available for the most significant aspects of such filing of the proposed rule change, the inspection and copying at the principal statements. Commission may summarily abrogate office of the Exchange. All comments such rule change if it appears to the received will be posted without change; A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission that such action is the Commission does not edit personal Statement of the Purpose of, and necessary or appropriate in the public identifying information from Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule interest, for the protection of investors, submissions. You should submit only Change or otherwise in furtherance of the information that you wish to make 1. Purpose purposes of the Act. available publicly. All submissions NYSE Rule 300(b) provides that, in should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– 4 each annual offering, up to 1366 trading See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59140, 2009–130 and should be submitted on 73 FR 80488 (December 31, 2009[sic]) (SR–NYSE– or before January 29, 2010. licenses for the following calendar year 2008–130). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 9 The text of the proposed rule change is available 2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). on the Commission’s Web site at http:// 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). www.sec.gov.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1107

For the Commission, by the Division of of those statements may be examined at the Commission before December 31, Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated the places specified in Item IV below. 2009. authority.10 The Exchange has prepared summaries, Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Florence E. Harmon, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot Deputy Secretary. of the most significant parts of such [FR Doc. 2010–74 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] statements. The Exchange established the Extreme BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Order Imbalance Pilot to create a A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s mechanism for ensuring a fair and Statement of the Purpose of, and the orderly close when interest is received SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule at or near the close that could negatively COMMISSION Change affect the closing transaction. The 1. Purpose Exchange believes that this tool has [Release No. 34–61264; File No. SR–NYSE– proved very useful to resolve an extreme 2009–131] NYSE Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) allows the order imbalance that may result in a Exchange to temporarily suspend Self-Regulatory Organizations; New closing price dislocation at the close as certain rule requirements at the close a result of an order entered into York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of when extreme order imbalances may Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Exchange systems, or represented to a cause significant dislocation to the DMM orally at or near the close. Proposed Rule Change Amending closing price. The rule has operated on NYSE Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) To Extend As the Exchange has previously a pilot basis since April 2009 (‘‘Extreme stated, NYSE Rule 123C(8) will be Operation of the Extreme Order Order Imbalances Pilot’’ or ‘‘Pilot’’).3 Imbalances Pilot invoked to attract offsetting interest in Through this filing, NYSE proposes to rare circumstances where there exists an December 31, 2009. extend the Pilot until the earlier of extreme imbalance at the close such that Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities and Exchange Commission a DMM is unable to close the security approval to make such Pilot permanent without significantly dislocating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 4 ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 or March 1, 2010. price. This is evidenced by the fact that notice is hereby given that, on December Background during the course of the Pilot, the Exchange invoked the provisions of 24, 2009, New York Stock Exchange Pursuant to NYSE Rule 123C(8)(a)(1), LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed NYSE Rule 123C(8), including the the Exchange may suspend NYSE Rules provisions of the Extreme Order with the Securities and Exchange 52 (Hours of Operation) to resolve an Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the Imbalance Pilot pursuant to NYSE Rule extreme order imbalance that may result 123C(8)(a)(1), in only one security on proposed rule change as described in in a closing price dislocation at the Items I and II below, which Items have August 31, 2009. close as a result of an order entered into In addition, during the operation of been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange systems, or represented to a Commission is publishing this notice to the Pilot, the Exchange determined that DMM orally at or near the close. The it would not be as onerous as previously solicit comments on the proposed rule provisions of NYSE Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) change from interested persons. believed to modify Exchange systems to operate as the Extreme Order Imbalance accept orders electronically after 4:00 I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Pilot. p.m. The Exchange anticipates that such Statement of the Terms of Substance of As a condition of the approval to system modifications could [sic] be the Proposed Rule Change operate the Pilot, the Exchange completed by December 31, 2009. committed to provide the Commission The Exchange proposes to amend Given the above, the Exchange with information regarding: (i) How NYSE Rule 123C(8)(a)(1) to extend the believes that provisions governing the often a Rule 52 temporary suspension operation of the pilot to temporarily Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot should pursuant to the Pilot was invoked suspend certain NYSE requirements be made permanent. Through this filing during the six months following its relating to the closing of securities on the Exchange seeks to extend the approval; and (ii) the Exchange’s the Exchange until the earlier of current operation of the Pilot in order to determination as to how to proceed with Securities and Exchange Commission allow the Exchange to formally submit technical modifications to reconfigure approval to make such pilot permanent a filing to the Commission to convert Exchange systems to accept orders or March 1, 2010. The text of the the provisions governing the Pilot to electronically after 4 p.m. proposed rule change is available at the permanent rules and complete the The Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot is Exchange, the Commission’s Public technological modifications required to scheduled to end operation on Reference Room, and http:// accept orders electronically after 4:00 December 31, 2009.5 The Exchange is www.nyse.com. p.m. The Exchange therefore requests an currently preparing a rule filing seeking extension from the current expiration II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s permission to make the provisions of date of December 31, 2009, until the Statement of the Purpose of, and the Pilot permanent with certain earlier of Securities and Exchange Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule modifications but does not expect that Commission approval to make such Change filing to be completed and approved by Pilot permanent or March 1, 2010. In its filing with the Commission, the 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59755 2. Statutory Basis self-regulatory organization included (April 13, 2009), 74 FR 18009 (April 20, 2009) statements concerning the purpose of, (SR–NYSE–2009–18). The basis under the Act for this and basis for, the proposed rule change 4 The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed rule change is the requirement and discussed any comments it received proposed to be made to the rules of NYSE Amex under Section 6(b)(5) 6 that an Exchange on the proposed rule change. The text LLC. See SR–NYSEAmex–2009–96. have rules that are designed to promote 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60809 just and equitable principles of trade, to (October 9, 2009), 74 FR 53532 (October 19, 2009) 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). (SR–NYSE–2009–104) (extending the operation of remove impediments to and perfect the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). the pilot from October 13, 2009 to December 31, 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 2009). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

mechanism of a free and open market pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a national market system and, in Commission may designate a shorter 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC general, to protect investors and the time if such action is consistent with the 20549–1090. public interest. The Exchange believes protection of investors and the public that the instant filing is consistent with interest. The Exchange requested that All submissions should refer to File these principles. Specifically an the Commission waive the 30-day Number SR–NYSE–2009–131. This file extension will allow the Exchange to: (i) operative delay, as specified in Rule number should be included on the Prepare and submit a filing to make the 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),10 which would make the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the provisions governing the Extreme Order rule change operative immediately. The Commission process and review your Imbalance Pilot permanent; (ii) have Exchange believes that continuation of comments more efficiently, please use such filing complete public notice and the Pilot does not burden competition only one method. The Commission will comment period; and (iii) complete the and would operate to protect investors post all comments on the Commission’s 19b–4 approval process. The rule and the public interest by ensuring that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ operates to protect investors and the the closing price at the Exchange is not rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the public interest by ensuring that the significantly dislocated from the last submission,13 all subsequent closing price at the Exchange is not sale price by virtue of an extreme order amendments, all written statements significantly dislocated from the last imbalance at or near the close. with respect to the proposed rule sale price by virtue of an extreme order The Commission believes that change that are filed with the imbalance at or near the close. waiving the 30-day operative delay is Commission, and all written consistent with the protection of communications relating to the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s investors and the public interest proposed rule change between the Statement on Burden on Competition because it would allow the Pilot to Commission and any person, other than The Exchange does not believe that continue without interruption while the those that may be withheld from the the proposed rule change will impose Exchange works towards submitting a public in accordance with the any burden on competition that is not separate proposal to make the Pilot provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be necessary or appropriate in furtherance permanent. Accordingly, the of the purposes of the Act. Commission designates the proposed available for inspection and copying in rule change as operative upon filing the Commission’s Public Reference C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s with the Commission.11 Section on official business days Statement on Comments on the At any time within 60 days of the between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Proposed Rule Change Received From filing of the proposed rule change, the Copies of the filing will also be available Members, Participants, or Others Commission may summarily abrogate for inspection and copying at the No written comments were solicited such rule change if it appears to the principal office of the Exchange. All or received with respect to the proposed Commission that such action is comments received will be posted rule change. necessary or appropriate in the public without change; the Commission does interest, for the protection of investors, III. Date of Effectiveness of the not edit personal identifying or otherwise in furtherance of the information from submissions. You Proposed Rule Change and Timing for purposes of the Act.12 Commission Action should submit only information that IV. Solicitation of Comments you wish to make available publicly. All The Exchange has filed the proposed Interested persons are invited to submissions should refer to File rule change pursuant to Section Number SR–NYSE–2009–131 and 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 7 and Rule submit written data, views, and should be submitted on or before 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.8 Because the arguments concerning the foregoing, January 29, 2010. proposed rule change does not: (i) including whether the proposed rule Significantly affect the protection of change is consistent with the Act. For the Commission, by the Division of investors or the public interest; (ii) Comments may be submitted by any of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated impose any significant burden on the following methods: authority.14 competition; and (iii) become operative Electronic Comments Florence E. Harmon, prior to 30 days from the date on which • Use the Commission’s Internet Deputy Secretary. it was filed, or such shorter time as the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ [FR Doc. 2010–72 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Commission may designate, if rules/sro.shtml); or BILLING CODE 8011–01–P consistent with the protection of • Send an e-mail to rule- investors and the public interest, the [email protected]. Please include File proposed rule change has become Number SR–NYSE–2009–131 on the effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) subject line. of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. Paper Comments A proposed rule change filed under • Send paper comments in triplicate Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, become operative prior to 30 days after 9 the date of the filing. However, of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). NYSE has satisfied this requirement. 8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 11 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory 13 organization to give the Commission notice of its considered the proposed rule’s impact on The text of the proposed rule change is intent to file the proposed rule change, along with efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See available on the Commission’s Web site at http:// a brief description and text of the proposed rule 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). www.sec.gov. change, at least five business days prior to the date 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1109

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE statements may be examined at the such constituent is willing to pay for COMMISSION places specified in Item IV below. The such ports. Based on the proposal, the Exchange has prepared summaries, set change applies to all Exchange [Release No. 34–61260; File No. SR–BATS– forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of constituents with physical connections, 2009–032] the most significant parts of such including Members that obtain ports for Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS statements. direct access to the Exchange, non- member service bureaus that act as a Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s conduit for orders entered by Exchange Proposed Rule Change To Amend Statement of the Purpose of, and Members that are their customers, BATS Fee Schedule To Impose Fees Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Sponsored Participants, and market data for Physical Ports Used To Connect to Change BATS Exchange recipients. Very few Members or other 1. Purpose non-members require four physical December 30, 2009. The purpose of the proposed rule ports for their operations related to the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the change is to begin charging a monthly Exchange or would utilize more than Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the fee for physical ports used to connect to four physical ports, and thus, the ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 the Exchange’s system for order entry proposal should not affect many of the notice is hereby given that on December and receipt of data from the Exchange. Exchange’s constituents. However, the 18, 2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BATS’’ The Exchange recently began charging Exchange believes that Members and or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the for ‘‘logical’’ ports used for order entry non-members that wish to pay for Securities and Exchange Commission or receipt of Exchange data,4 but does additional physical ports outside of (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule not currently charge for the ‘‘physical’’ those provided for free should have the change as described in Items I, II, and ports needed to connect to the ability to do so. III below, which Items have been Exchange’s system. A logical port is also 2. Statutory Basis prepared by the Exchange. The commonly referred to as a TCP/IP port, The rule change proposed in this Commission is publishing this notice to and represents a port established by the submission is consistent with the solicit comments on the proposed rule Exchange within the Exchange’s system requirements of the Act and the rules change from interested persons. for trading and billing purposes. Each and regulations thereunder that are logical port established is specific to a I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s applicable to a national securities Member or non-member and grants that Statement of the Terms of Substance of exchange, and, in particular, with the Member or non-member the ability to the Proposed Rule Change requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.6 operate a specific application, such as Specifically, the Exchange believes that The Exchange has filed a proposed FIX order entry or PITCH data receipt. rule change to amend the fee schedule the proposed change is consistent with In contrast, a physical port is the port 7 applicable to Members 3 and non- that is used by a Member or non- Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, because it members of the Exchange pursuant to member to literally plug into the provides an equitable allocation of BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Pursuant to Exchange at the data centers where the reasonable dues, fees, and other charges the proposed rule change the Exchange Exchange’s servers are located (i.e., among its members and other persons will commence charging fees to either a cross-connection or a private using its facilities. The Exchange Members and non-members for certain line Ethernet connection to the believes that its proposed physical port physical ports used to connect to the Exchange’s network within the data fees are reasonable in light of the Exchange’s systems. The Exchange will center). Multiple logical ports can be benefits to Exchange Users of direct implement the proposed rule change on created for a single physical port. market access and receipt of data, which the first day of the month immediately The Exchange proposes to provide access and data can be accomplished following Commission approval (or on four (4) pairs 5 of physical ports without without charge through the four the date of approval, if on the first charge to any Member or non-member physical port pairs provided free of business day of a month). that has been approved to connect to the charge or through other means of access The text of the proposed rule change Exchange. Due to the infrastructure not requiring physical ports (e.g., access is available on the Exchange’s Web site costs associated with providing physical through a virtual private network, or at http://www.batstrading.com, on the ports, the Exchange proposes to charge ‘‘VPN’’, connection). In addition, the Commission’s Web site (http:// $2,000 for each additional single Exchange believes that its fees are www.sec.gov), at the Exchange’s physical port provided by the Exchange equitably allocated among its principal office, and at the to any Member or non-member in any constituents as they are uniform in Commission’s Public Reference Room. data center. Under the Exchange’s application to all Members and non- current policy all physical ports are Members. The Exchange believes that II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s provided free of charge but Members fees for each single physical port over Statement of the Purpose of, and and non-members are only permitted to and above four free physical port pairs Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule establish up to 4 such physical port will enable it to cover its infrastructure Change pairs. The Exchange’s proposal is costs associated with allowing In its filing with the Commission, the intended to permit those Members and constituents to establish additional Exchange included statements non-members that wish to establish physical ports to connect to the concerning the purpose of, and basis for, additional physical ports to do so if Exchange’s systems. the proposed rule change and discussed B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 4 any comments it received on the See Release No. 34–60364 (July 22, 2009), 74 FR Statement on Burden on Competition proposed rule change. The text of those 37285 (July 28, 2009) (File No. SR–BATS–2009– 026). The Exchange does not believe that 5 A ‘‘pair’’ of ports refers to one port at the site 1 the proposed rule change will result in 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). of the Exchange’s primary data center (including 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. the expansion space located adjacent to such data 3 A Member is any registered broker or dealer that center) and one port at the site of the Exchange’s 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. secondary data center. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1110 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

any burden on competition that is not All submissions should refer to File amended, and Delegation of Authority necessary or appropriate in furtherance Number SR–BATS–2009–032. This file No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], of the purposes of the Act, as amended. number should be included on the I hereby determine that the objects to be Market participants will not be affected subject line if e-mail is used. To help the included in the exhibition ‘‘Marina by the proposal unless such Commission process and review your Abramovic: The Artist Is Present,’’ participants’ technological needs are comments more efficiently, please use imported from abroad for temporary such that they wish to establish more only one method. The Commission will exhibition within the United States, are than four physical connections to the post all comments on the Commission’s of cultural significance. The objects are Exchange. In addition, the Exchange Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ imported pursuant to loan agreements believes that the proposed physical port rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the with the foreign owners or custodians. fees are reasonable, especially in light of submission, all subsequent I also determine that the exhibition or the 4 pairs of physical ports provided by amendments, all written statements display of the exhibit objects at the the Exchange for free. with respect to the proposed rule Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, change that are filed with the from on or about March 14, 2010, until C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission, and all written on or about May 31, 2010, and at Statement on Comments on the communications relating to the possible additional exhibitions or Proposed Rule Change Received From proposed rule change between the venues yet to be determined, is in the Members, Participants or Others Commission and any person, other than national interest. Public Notice of these The Exchange has not solicited, and those that may be withheld from the Determinations is ordered to be does not intend to solicit, comments on public in accordance with the published in the Federal Register. this proposed rule change. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Exchange has not received any written available for inspection and copying in further information, including a list of comments From members or other the Commission’s Public Reference the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. interested parties. Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the DC 20549, on official business days III. Date of Effectiveness of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for (telephone: 202/632–6473). The address Copies of the filing also will be available Commission Action is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, for inspection and copying at the Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522– Within 35 days of the date of principal office of the Exchange. All 0505. publication of this notice in the Federal comments received will be posted Dated: January 4, 2010. Register or within such longer period (i) without change; the Commission does as the Commission may designate up to not edit personal identifying Maura M. Pally, 90 days of such date if it finds such information from submissions. You Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional longer period to be appropriate and should submit only information that and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department publishes its reasons for so finding or you wish to make available publicly. All of State. (ii) as to which the self-regulatory submissions should refer to File [FR Doc. 2010–146 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] organization consents, the Commission Number SR–BATS–2009–032 and will: should be submitted on or before BILLING CODE 4710–05–P (A) By order approve the proposed January 29, 2010. rule change, or For the Commission, by the Division of OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES (B) Institute proceedings to determine Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated TRADE REPRESENTATIVE whether the proposed rule change authority.8 should be disapproved. Florence E. Harmon, [Docket No. WTO/DS399] Deputy Secretary. IV. Solicitation of Comments WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding [FR Doc. 2010–70 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Regarding United States—Certain Interested persons are invited to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P submit written data, views, and Measures Affecting Imports of Certain arguments concerning the foregoing, Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From China including whether the proposed rule DEPARTMENT OF STATE change is consistent with the Act. AGENCY: Office of the United States [Public Notice 6862] Comments may be submitted by any of Trade Representative. the following methods: Culturally Significant Objects Imported ACTION: Notice; request for comments. Electronic Comments for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Marina SUMMARY: The Office of the United Abramovic: The Artist Is Present’’ • Use the Commission’s Internet States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the providing notice that on December 9, rules/sro.shtml); or following determinations: Pursuant to 2009 the United States received a • Send an e-mail to rule- the authority vested in me by the Act of request from China for the [email protected]. Please include File October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. establishment of a dispute settlement Number SR–BATS–2009–032 on the 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March panel under the Marrakesh Agreement subject line. 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Establishing the World Trade Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. Organization (‘‘WTO Agreement’’) Paper Comments 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et concerning certain measures affecting • Send paper comments in triplicate seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of imports of certain passenger vehicle and to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority light truck tires from China. The request Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as may be found at http://www.wto.org in 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC document WT/DS399/2. USTR invites 20549–1090. 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). written comments from the public

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1111

concerning the issues raised in this China alleges that the additional The http://www.regulations.gov site dispute. duties, not having been justified as provides the option of providing DATES: Although USTR will accept any emergency action under relevant WTO comments by filling in a ‘‘Type comments received during the course of rules, are inconsistent with Article I:1 of Comment and Upload File’’ field, or by the dispute settlement proceedings, the General Agreement on Tariffs and attaching a document. It is expected that comments should be submitted on or Trade 1994 (‘‘GATT 1994’’), because the most comments will be provided in an before January 29, 2010, to be assured of United States does not accord to attached document. If a document is timely consideration by USTR. Chinese tires the same treatment it attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See accords to passenger vehicle and light attached’’ in the ‘‘Type Comment and ADDRESSES: Comments should be truck tires from China originating in Upload File’’ field. submitted electronically to http:// other countries; and with Article II of A person requesting that information www.regulations.gov, docket number the GATT 1994, because the higher contained in a comment submitted by USTR–2009–0035. If you are unable to tariffs consist of unjustified that person be treated as confidential provide submissions by http:// modifications of U.S. concessions. business information must certify that www.regulations.gov, please contact China also alleges that these measures such information is business Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to have not been properly justified confidential and would not customarily arrange for an alternative method of pursuant to Article XIX of the GATT be released to the public by the transmission. If (as explained below), 1994 and the WTO Agreement on submitter. Confidential business the comment contains confidential Safeguards. China also alleges that these information must be clearly designated information, then the comment should measures have not been properly as such and the submission must be be submitted by fax only to Sandy justified as China-specific restrictions marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ at McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. under the Protocol on the Accession of the top and bottom of the cover page FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the People’s Republic of China (Protocol and each succeeding page. Any ´ Marı´a L. Pagan, Associate General of Accession). comment containing business Counsel, Office of the United States Furthermore, China alleges that the confidential information must be Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, U.S. statute authorizing these China- submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395– specific restrictions is inconsistent on (202) 395–3640. A non-confidential 7305. its face with Article 16 of the Protocol summary of the confidential SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is of Accession because, according to information must be submitted to providing notice that establishment of a China, the statute impermissibly http://www.regulations.gov. The non- dispute settlement panel has been weakens the standard of ‘‘significant confidential summary will be placed in requested pursuant to the WTO cause’’ by imposing a definition of the the docket and open to public Understanding on Rules and Procedures term that contradicts Article 16.4 of the inspection. Governing the Settlement of Disputes Protocol of Accession. Finally, China Information or advice contained in a (‘‘DSU’’). If a dispute settlement panel is alleges that the restrictions are comment submitted, other than business established, the panel, which would inconsistent with Articles 16.1, 16.3, confidential information, may be hold its meetings in Geneva, 16.4, and 16.6 of the Protocol of determined by USTR to be confidential Switzerland, would be expected to issue Accession. in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of a report on its findings and the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. Public Comment: Requirements for recommendations within nine months 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that Submissions after it is established. information or advice may qualify as Interested persons are invited to Major Issues Raised by China such, the submitter— submit written comments concerning (1) Must clearly so designate the In its request for the establishment of the issues raised in this dispute. Persons information or advice; a panel, China challenges the additional may submit public comments (2) Must clearly mark the material as duties imposed by the United States on electronically to http:// ‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ at the certain passenger vehicle and light truck www.regulations.gov docket number top and bottom of the cover page and tires from China pursuant to a USTR–2009–0035. If you are unable to each succeeding page; and Presidential determination and provide submissions by http:// (3) Must provide a non-confidential proclamation issued on September 11, www.regulations.gov, please contact summary of the information or advice. 2009 under section 421 of the Trade Act Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to Any comment containing confidential of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2451). arrange for an alternative method of information must be submitted by fax. A The President’s determination can be transmission. non-confidential summary of the found at 74 FR 47433 (September 16, To submit comments via http:// confidential information must be 2009); the proclamation can be found at www.regulations.gov, enter docket submitted to http:// 74 FR 47861 (September 17, 2009). The number USTR–2009–0035 on the click www.regulations.gov. The non- related report by the U.S. International ‘‘search’’. The site will provide a search- confidential summary will be placed in Trade Commission issued as part of the results page listing all documents the docket and open to public investigation can be found at Certain associated with this docket. Find a inspection. USTR will maintain a Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires reference to this notice by selecting docket on this dispute settlement from the People’s Republic of China, ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document Type’’ on the proceeding accessible to the public. The Investigation No. TA–421–7, USITC left side of the search-results page, and public file will include non-confidential Publication No. 4085 (July 2009). The click on the link entitled ‘‘Submit a comments received by USTR from the additional duties took effect on Comment.’’ (For further information on public with respect to the dispute; if a September 26, 2009. The request using the http://www.regulations.gov dispute settlement panel is convened or purports to include any other measures Web site, please consult the resources in the event of an appeal from such a the United States has announced or may provided on the Web site by clicking on panel, the U.S. submissions, any non- announce to implement the President’s ‘‘How to Use This Site’’ on the left side confidential submissions, or non- determination. of the home page.) confidential summaries of submissions,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

received from other participants in the www.regulations.gov including any (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility dispute; the report of the panel; and, if personal information provided. You and clarity of the information to be applicable, the report of the Appellate should know that anyone is able to collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Body. search the electronic form of all burden of the collection of information Comments will be placed in the comments received into any of our on respondents, including the use of docket and open to public inspection dockets by the name of the individual automated collection techniques or pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13, except submitting the comment (or signing the other forms of information technology. confidential business information comment, if submitted on behalf of an All responses to this notice will be exempt from public inspection in association, business, labor union, etc.). summarized and included in the request accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15 or Docket: For access to the docket to for OMB approval. All comments will information determined by USTR to be read background documents or also become a matter of public record. confidential in accordance with 19 comments received, go to http:// Issued in Washington, DC on January 4, U.S.C. 2155(g)(2). Comments open to www.regulations.gov at any time or to 2010. public inspection may be viewed on the Room W12–140 on the ground level of Todd M. Homan, http://www.regulations.gov Web site. the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between Steven F. Fabry, [FR Doc. 2010–134 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] 9 a.m. and 5 a.m., Monday through Acting Assistant United States Trade Friday, except Wednesday and Federal BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. holidays. [FR Doc. 2010–126 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BILLING CODE 3190–W0–P Lauralyn Remo, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X–56), Office of Aviation Office of the Secretary Analysis, Office of the Secretary, U.S. [Docket No. DOT–OST–2003–15623] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, Notice of Request for Renewal of a Office of the Secretary DC 20590, (202) 366–9721. Previously Approved Collection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [Docket No. DOT–OST–2003–15962] Title: Procedures and Evidence Rules AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice of Request for Renewal of a for Air Carrier Authority Applications: Notice. Previously Approved Collection 14 CFR Part 201—Air Carrier Authority under Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the SUMMARY: In accordance with the AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. United States Code—(Amended); 14 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), this ACTION: Notice. CFR Part 204—Data to Support Fitness Determinations; 14 CFR Part 291—Cargo notice announces the U.S. Department SUMMARY: In accordance with the Operations in Interstate Air of Transportation’s (DOT) intention to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Transportation. request renewal of a previously U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), this OMB Control Number: 2106–0023. approved information collection. notice announces the U.S. Department Expiration Date: May 31, 2010. DATES: Comments on this notice must be of Transportation’s (DOT) intention to Type of Request: Extension of a received by March 9, 2010. request renewal of a previously previously approved collection. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments approved information collection. Abstract: In order to determine the [identified by DOT Docket Number DATES: Comments on this notice must be fitness of persons seeking authority to DOT–OST–2003–15623] by any of the received by March 9, 2010. engage in air transportation, the following methods: ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Department collects information from • Web site: http:// [identified by DOT Docket Number them about their ownership, www.regulations.gov. Follow the DOT–OST–2003–15962 by any of the citizenship, managerial competence, instructions for submitting comments following methods: operating proposal, financial condition, on the DOT electronic docket site. • Web site: http:// and compliance history. The specific • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. www.regulations.gov. Follow the information to be filed by respondents • Mail: Docket Management Facility; instructions for submitting comments is set forth in 14 CFR Parts 201 and 204. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 on the DOT electronic docket site. Respondents: Persons seeking initial New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, • Fax: 1–202–493–2251 or continuing authority to engage in air Room W12–140, Washington, DC • Mail: Docket Management Facility; transportation of persons, property, and/ 20590–0001. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 or mail. • Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Estimated Number of Respondents: the ground level of the West Building, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 147.6. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 20590–001. Average Annual Burden per Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 • Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on Respondent: 45.73 hours. p.m., Monday through Friday, except the ground level of the West Building, Estimated Total Burden on Wednesday and Federal Holidays. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Respondents: 6,750 hours. Instructions: All submissions must Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 Comments are invited on: (a) Whether include the agency name and Docket p.m., Monday through Friday, except the proposed collection of information Number DOT–OST–2003–15962. Note Wednesday and Federal Holidays. is necessary for the proper performance that all comments received will be Instructions: All submissions must of the functions of the Department, posted without change to http:// include the agency name and Docket including whether the information will www.regulations.gov including any Number DOT–OST–2003–15962. Note have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of personal information provided. You that all comments received will be the Department’s estimate of the burden should know that anyone is able to posted without change to http:// of the proposed information collection; search the electronic form of all

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1113

comments received into any of our Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION dockets by the name of the individual 2010. submitting the comment (or signing the James Dann, Office of the Secretary comment, if submitted on behalf of an Associate Director, Office of Aviation association, business, labor union, etc.). Analysis. Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Docket: For access to the docket to [FR Doc. 2010–135 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed read background documents or BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) comments received, go to http:// During the Week Ending December 12, www.regulations.gov at any time or to 2009 Room W12–140 on the ground level of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Office of the Secretary The following Applications for Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between Certificates of Public Convenience and 9 a.m. and 5 a.m., Monday through Notice of Applications for Certificates Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Friday, except Wednesday and Federal of Public Convenience and Necessity Permits were filed under Subpart B holidays. and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) of Transportation’s Procedural Title: Use and Change of Names of Air During the Week Ending December 26, Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et Carriers, Foreign Air Charters, and 2009 seq.). The due date for Answers, Commuter Air Carriers, 14 CFR part Conforming Applications, or Motions to 215. The following Applications for Modify Scope are set forth below for Certificates of Public Convenience and each application. Following the Answer OMB Control Number: 2106–0043. Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier period DOT may process the application Type of Request: Renewal of a Permits were filed under Subpart B by expedited procedures. Such previously approved collection. (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department procedures may consist of the adoption Abstract: In accordance with the of Transportation’s Procedural of a show-cause order, a tentative order, procedures set forth in 14 CFR part 215, Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et or in appropriate cases a final order before a holder of certificated, foreign, seq.). The due date for Answers, without further proceedings. or commuter air carrier authority may Conforming Applications, or Motions to Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– hold itself out to the public in any Modify Scope are set forth below for 0329. particular name or trade name, it must each application. Following the Answer Date Filed: December 9, 2009. register that name or trade name with period DOT may process the application the Department, and notify all other by expedited procedures. Such Due Date for Answers, Conforming certificated, foreign, and commuter air procedures may consist of the adoption Applications, or Motion to Modify carriers that have registered the same or of a show-cause order, a tentative order, Scope: December 30, 2009. similar name(s) of the intended name or in appropriate cases a final order Description: Application of Kalitta registration. without further proceedings. Air, L.L.C. requesting: (1) A certificate of Respondents: Persons seeking to use Docket Number: DOT–OST–2007– public convenience and necessity or change the name or trade name in 0007. authorizing it to provide scheduled which they hold themselves out to the Date Filed: December 22, 2009. foreign air transportation of property public as an air carrier or foreign air and mail between a point or points in Due Date for Answers, Conforming carrier. the United States and a point or points Applications, or Motion to Modify in China, via intermediate points, and Estimated Number of Respondents: Scope: January 12, 2010. 12. beyond China to any point or points; (2) Description: Application of Baltia Air an exemption to the extent necessary Estimated Total Burden on Lines, Inc. (Baltia), requesting that its authorizing the service described above; Respondents: 65 hours. experimental certificate of public (3) designation as the additional U.S.- Comments are invited on: (a) Whether convenience and necessity for foreign flag carrier permitted effective March the proposed collection of information air transportation, Route 890 be 25, 2010; (4) allocation of six of the 15 is necessary for the proper performance extended for eight-month and that Baltia scheduled all-cargo frequencies that of the functions of the Department, be reissued one round trip weekly become available March 25, 2010 or including whether the information will frequency between New York and St. which are otherwise unused and have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Petersburg, Russia. available; (5) and motion to consolidate the Department’s estimate of the burden this application with the exemption Barbara J. Hairston, of the proposed information collection; application filed by Southern Air, Inc. (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket to be considered contemporaneously. and clarity of the information to be Operations, Alternate Federal Register collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Liaison. Barbara J. Hairston, burden of the collection of information [FR Doc. 2010–127 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket on respondents, including the use of BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P Operations, Alternate Federal Register automated collection techniques or Liaison. other forms of information technology. [FR Doc. 2010–131 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] All responses to this notice will be BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea, Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea-South East Resolutions and Specified Fares Tables Asia between Korea (Rep. of) and Guam, Office of the Secretary (Memo 1331), Intended effective date: 1 Northern Mariana Islands Resolutions & April 2010. Specified Fares Tables (Memo 1338) & Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– TC3 Minutes (Memo 1339), Intended Filed the Week Ending December 19, 0326. effective date: 1 April 2010. 2009. Date Filed: December 8, 2009. Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– The following Agreements were filed Parties: Members of the International 0334. with the Department of Transportation Air Transport Association. Date Filed: December 8, 2009. under Sections 412 and 414 of the Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea—South Parties: Members of the International Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 Asian Subcontinent Resolutions and Air Transport Association. U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures Specified Fares Tables, (Memo 1332) & Subject: Composite Passenger Tariff governing proceedings to enforce these Technical Corrections (Memo 1340), Coordinating Conference; Resolution provisions. Answers may be filed within Intended effective date: 1 April 2010. 017c (Memo 1555), Intended effective 21 days after the filing of the Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– date: 1 April 2010. application. 0327. Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Date Filed: December 8, 2009. 0335. 0343. Parties: Members of the International Date Filed: December 8, 2009. Date Filed: December 16, 2009. Air Transport Association. Parties: Members of the International Parties: Members of the International Subject: TC3 Japan, Korea—South Air Transport Association. Air Transport Association. East Asia except between Korea (Rep. Subject: Mail Vote 615—Flex Fares Subject: of) and Guam, Northern Mariana Islands Package; TC23/123 Europe-Japan, Korea TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolutions and Specified Fares Tables Resolutions (Memo 0192), Intended Resolution 010k between Japan, Korea (Memo 1333) & Technical Corrections effective date: 1 April 2010. (Rep. of) and China (excluding Hong (Memo 1341), Intended effective date: 1 Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Kong SAR and Macao SAR), and April 2010. 0336. between Japan and Korea (Rep. of) Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Date Filed: December 8, 2009. (Memo 1342) 0328. Parties: Members of the International Intended effective date: 15 January Date Filed: December 8, 2009. Air Transport Association. 2010. Parties: Members of the International Subject: Mail Vote 614—Flex Fares Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Air Transport Association. Package; TC23 Europe-South East Asia 0346. Subject: TC3 Within South East Asia Resolutions (Memo 0294), Intended Date Filed: December 16, 2009. except between Malaysia and Guam effective date: 1 April 2010. Parties: Members of the International Resolutions and Specified Fares Tables Barbara J. Hairston, Air Transport Association. (Memo 1334), Intended effective date: 1 Subject: April 2010. Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal Register TC3 Areawide Revalidating Resolution Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Liaison. 002, (Memo 1343) 0330. [FR Doc. 2010–132 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Intended effective date: 1 April 2010. Date Filed: December 8, 2009. BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Barbara J. Hairston, Parties: Members of the International Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Air Transport Association. Operations, Federal Register Liaison. Subject: TC3 South East Asia-South DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Asian Subcontinent Resolutions and [FR Doc. 2010–133 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Specified Fares Tables (Memo 1335), Federal Highway Administration BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Intended effective date: 1 April 2010. Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0331. Date Filed: December 8, 2009. AGENCY: Federal Highway Office of the Secretary Parties: Members of the International Administration (FHWA), DOT. Air Transport Association. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Subject: TC3 Within South Asian for Judicial Review of Actions by the Filed the Week Ending December 12, Subcontinent Resolutions (Memo 1336), California Department of Transportation 2009 Intended effective date: 1 April 2010. (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. The following Agreements were filed Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– with the Department of Transportation 0332. SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Date Filed: December 8, 2009. Caltrans, is issuing this notice to Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 Parties: Members of the International announce actions taken by Caltrans that U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures Air Transport Association. are final within the meaning of 23 governing proceedings to enforce these Subject: TC3 Within South East Asia U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a provisions. Answers may be filed within from Malaysia to Guam Resolutions & proposed highway project, State Route 21 days after the filing of the Specified Fares Tables (Memo 1337), 16 between the town of Brooks and application. Intended effective date: 1 April 2010. Interstate 505 in the County Yolo, State Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– of California. Those actions grant 0325. 0333. licenses, permits, and approvals for the Date Filed: December 8, 2009. Date Filed: December 8, 2009. project. Parties: Members of the International Parties: Members of the International DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on Air Transport Association. Air Transport Association. behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1115

of final agency actions subject to 23 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 SAFETEA–LU. The Research and U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking U.S.C. 661–667(d)], Migratory Bird Innovative Technology Administration judicial review of the Federal agency Treaty Act [16U.S.C. 703–712]. (RITA)’s Office of Research, actions on the highway project will be 4. Historic and Cultural Resources: Development, and Technology (RD&T) barred unless the claim is filed on or Section 106 of the National Historic is coordinating this effort in before July 7, 2010. If the Federal law Preservation Act of 1966, as amended collaboration with partner modal that authorizes judicial review of a [16 U.S.C. 470]; Section 4(f) of the U.S. administrations and offices across the claim provides a time period of less Department of Transportation Act of U.S. DOT. As recommended by the U.S. than 180 days for filing such claim, then 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. Government Accountability Office that shorter time period still applies. 5. Social and Economic: Civil Rights (GAO) and the National Research FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)– Council (NRC), RITA and its partners Jeremy Ketchum, Caltrans Senior 2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy are seeking public stakeholder input on Environmental Planner, 2800 Gateway Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]; research strategies and metrics Oaks Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833 or Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance necessary to achieve U.S. DOT strategic call (916) 274–0621 or e-mail and Real Property Acquisition Policies transportation goals and to drive [email protected]. Act of 1970, as amended. transportation policy in both the short 6. Hazardous Materials: and long terms. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective Comprehensive Environmental The U.S. DOT’s research, July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Response, Compensation, and Liability development, and technology (RD&T) Administration (FHWA) assigned, and Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675. efforts and outcomes play critical roles the California Department of 7. Wetlands and Water Resources: in attaining the vision of a safe, truly Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344]. multimodal transportation system that environmental responsibilities for this 8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 provides the traveling public and U.S. project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 businesses with safe, convenient, Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans Floodplain Management: E.O. 12898 affordable and environmentally has taken final agency actions subject to Federal Actions to Address sustainable transportation choices. A 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, Environmental Justice in Minority previous DOT Research, Development, permits, and approvals for the following Populations and Low Income and Technology Strategic Plan was highway project in the State of Populations. published in 2006 and served as a California: Caltrans proposes to improve compendium of modal research pursuits the safety of State Route 16 between the (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning at that time. The Department is now town of Brooks and Interstate 505 in and Construction. The regulations pursuing a more cross-modal, Yolo County by realigning the highway implementing Executive Order 12372 collaborative and strategic planning and constructing 8-foot shoulders and a regarding intergovernmental consultation on process to cover the years 2010–2015 20-foot clear recovery zone for the Federal programs and activities apply to this and to address the proposed length of the project (excluding the program.) Departmental key priorities as outlined towns of Capay and Esparto). The Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). in the Background section. actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were Issued on: January 4, 2010. DATES: Comment Period: Written taken, are described in the Cindy Vigue, comments should be submitted by Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Director, State Programs, Federal Highway February 8, 2010. project, approved on December 3, 2009, Administration, Sacramento, California. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments in the Finding of No Significant Impact [FR Doc. 2010–110 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] identified by RITA Docket ID Number (FONSI) issued on December 3, 2009, BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P RITA 2009–0005 by any of the following and in other documents in the FHWA methods: project records. The EA, FONSI, and Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to other project records are available by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the contacting Caltrans at the addresses online instructions for submitting Research and Innovative Technology provided above. The Caltrans EA and comments. Administration FONSI can be viewed and downloaded Æ Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 from the project Web site at http:// Invitation for Public Comment on New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/projects/yolo16/ Strategic Research Direction, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, documents.html, or viewed at the Research Priority Areas and Washington, DC 20590–0001. Esparto Public Library located at 17065 Performance Metrics To Guide Æ Hand Delivery or Courier: West Yolo Avenue, in Esparto, during normal Departmental Strategic Plan for Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, business hours. Research, Development and 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., This notice applies to all Federal Technology Activities (2010—2015) agency decisions as of the issuance date Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 of this notice and all laws under which AGENCY: Research and Innovative p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except such actions were taken, including but Technology Administration, DOT. Federal holidays. Æ not limited to: ACTION: Notice, request for public Fax: 202–493–2251. 1. General: National Environmental comments. Instructions: Identify docket number, Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321– RITA 2009–0005, at the beginning of 4351]; Federal Aid-Highway Act [23 SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of your comments. To receive confirmation U.S.C. 109]. Transportation (U.S. DOT) is providing that DOT received your comments, 2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– notice that it is engaging in a strategic include a self-addressed stamped 7671(q)]. planning effort that will guide the postcard containing the Docket number. 3. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act Department’s research, development, All comments received by DOT will [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and section 1536], and technology activities as required by be posted at http://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

All comments/questions will be posted DOT is seeking input from stakeholders funded perspective. The strategies electronically without change or edits, including individual citizens, members described in the plan will be designed including any personal information of the private sector, the academic to ensure that RD&T resources are provided. community, non-governmental invested wisely to achieve measurable Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search organizations, and other interested improvements in our Nation’s the electronic form of all comments/ parties. transportation system. Stakeholder suggestions for strategic questions filed in our dockets by the Issued in Washington, DC on December 23, name of the individual submitting the research direction, research priority 2009. areas and performance metrics for comment or question (or signing the Robert L. Bertini, comment, if submitted on behalf of an research outcomes should be aligned, if Deputy Administrator. association, corporation, business possible, with the new key priorities for entity, labor union, etc.). You may the Department, that will be set forth in [FR Doc. E9–30944 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] review DOT’s complete Privacy Act the U.S. DOT’s 2010–2015 Strategic BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P Statement in the Federal Register Plan (which is still in development) for all federal transportation programs and published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 19477–78) or you may visit http:// activities. Other high priority research DocketInfo.dot.gov. areas also are invited. Stakeholder Federal Aviation Administration suggestions also should provide overall FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M.J. guidance for DOT RD&T activities over Fiocco, Office of Research, Development RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic the next five years and provide a high Management Advisory Committee and Technology, Research and level view of appropriate research areas. Innovative Technology Administration, Suggestions for longer term research AGENCY: Federal Aviation Telephone Number (202) 366–8018, or needs also are welcome. These DOT key Administration (FAA), DOT. E-mail—[email protected]. priorities include: ACTION: Notice of RTCA Government/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Safety—Fostering a safety culture in Industry Air Traffic Management Background our daily work and encouraging our Advisory Committee. partners, stakeholders and the public to The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, redouble their efforts to reduce SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy transportation-related fatalities and to advise the public of a meeting of for Users (SAFETEA–LU) enacted in injuries. RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic 2005 called for the U.S. DOT to develop • Livable Communities—Creating Management Advisory Committee. a strategic plan to guide its RD&T livable communities that provide DATES: The meeting will be held activities. The strategic plan being residents with affordable transportation pursued as outlined in this notice February 11, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 1 options to promote increased access to p.m. addresses this requirement and also jobs, school, health services, and other responds to feedback from the National activities for our citizens while ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Research Council’s review (http:// improving the quality of life in their FAA Headquarters, 800 Independence onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/reports/ communities. Avenue, SW., Bessie Coleman letterreport_usdotrd&tplan.pdf) of an • State of Good Repair—Adequately Conference Center (2nd Floor), earlier plan, published in 2006, maintaining and modernizing our vast, Washington, DC 20591. ‘‘ Transportation Research, Development existing infrastructure to maximize its FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Technology Strategic Plan 2006– reliability, capacity and performance, to RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 2010’’ (http://www.rita.dot.gov/ reduce operational and replacement Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; publications/ costs and to extend the system’s useful _ _ _ _ telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) transportation rd t strategic plan/pdf/ life. 833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. • entire.pdf), and the recommendations of Economic Competitiveness— METRO: L’Enfant Plaza Station (Use 7th the GAO report published in 2006, Achieving the maximum economic & Maryland Exit). ‘‘Transportation Research: Opportunities impact from our transportation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant for Improving the Oversight of DOT’s investments and lay the groundwork for to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Research Programs and User long-term economic growth and Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Satisfaction with Transportation’’ prosperity. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ • Environmental Sustainability— 463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is d06917.pdf). Advancing transportation policies and hereby given for the Air Traffic The U.S. DOT, with leadership and investments that reduce carbon Management Advisory Committee coordination from its Research and meeting. The agenda will include: emissions and consumption of fossil • Innovative Technology Administration fuels as well as protecting and Opening Plenary (Welcome and (RITA), is engaged in an ongoing enhancing natural resources. Introductions) collaborative process involving all of the The RD&T strategic planning process • Trajectory Operations (TOps) Work U.S. DOT operating administrations. is collaborative, cross-modal, and Group Status Report Two cross-modal bodies participate in forward looking, focusing on • NextGen Implementation Work this process: the RD&T Planning articulating the U.S. DOT’s key research Group (NGIWG) Report, Discussion, and Council (composed of the heads of the priorities with measurable outcomes Next Steps operating administrations, the Under over the next five years. The process is • Airspace Work Group Annual Secretary for Policy, and other senior taking a department-wide, systems-level Report and Recommendations U.S. DOT leaders) and the RD&T view of the multimodal transportation • Closing Plenary (Other Business, Planning Team, which includes the system, and is setting strategies to Adjourn) Associate Administrators for RD&T in address research areas that stress a Note: Please arrive in the FAA lobby by each operating administration. Through multi-modal-oriented perspective as 9:30 a.m. to allow ample time for security this Federal Register notice, the U.S. well as a modal-specific and modal- and check in procedures.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1117

Attendance is open to the interested and be submitted by any of the Background public but limited to space availability. following methods: Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a • With the approval of the chairmen, Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to motor vehicle that was not originally members of the public may present oral http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the manufactured to conform to all statements at the meeting. Persons online instructions for submitting applicable FMVSS shall be refused wishing to present statements or obtain comments. admission into the United States unless information should contact the person • Mail: Docket Management Facility: NHTSA has decided that the motor listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 vehicle is substantially similar to a CONTACT section. Members of the public New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building motor vehicle originally manufactured may present a written statement to the Ground Floor, Room W12–140, for importation into and sale in the committee at any time. Washington, DC 20590–0001. United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. Issued in Washington, DC, on December • Hand Delivery or Courier: West 30115, and of the same model year as 29, 2009. Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, the model of the motor vehicle to be Francisco Estrada C., 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between compared, and is capable of being RTCA Advisory Committee. 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through readily altered to conform to all [FR Doc. 2010–147 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Friday, except Federal holidays. applicable FMVSS. • BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Fax: 202–493–2251. Petitions for eligibility decisions may Instructions: Comments must be be submitted by either manufacturers or written in the English language, and be importers who have registered with DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION no greater than 15 pages in length, NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As although there is no limit to the length specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety of necessary attachments to the publishes notice in the Federal Register Administration comments. If comments are submitted of each petition that it receives, and in hard copy form, please ensure that affords interested persons an [Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0191; Notice 1] two copies are provided. If you wish to opportunity to comment on the petition. receive confirmation that your At the close of the comment period, Notice of Receipt of Petition for comments were received, please enclose NHTSA decides, on the basis of the Decision That Nonconforming 2005 a stamped, self-addressed postcard with petition and any comments that it has and 2006 Mercedes Benz S-Class the comments. Note that all comments received, whether the vehicle is eligible Passenger Cars Manufactured Before received will be posted without change for importation. The agency then September 1, 2006, Are Eligible for to http://www.regulations.gov, including publishes this decision in the Federal Importation any personal information provided. Register. Please see the Privacy Act heading J.K. Technologies, LLC (‘‘JK’’), of AGENCY: National Highway Traffic below. Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Safety Administration, DOT. Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search Importer 90–006) has petitioned NHTSA ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for the electronic form of all comments to decide whether nonconforming 2005 decision that nonconforming 2005 and received into any of our dockets by the and 2006 Mercedes Benz S–Class 2006 Mercedes Benz S-Class passenger name of the individual submitting the passenger cars manufactured before cars manufactured before September 1, comment (or signing the comment, if September 1, 2006 are eligible for 2006, are eligible for importation. submitted on behalf of an association, importation into the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are SUMMARY: This document announces business, labor union, etc.). You may substantially similar are 2005 and 2006 receipt by the National Highway Traffic review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Mercedes Benz S–Class passenger cars Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a Statement in the Federal Register manufactured before September 1, 2006 petition for a decision that 2005 and published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR that were manufactured for sale in the 2006 Mercedes Benz S-Class passenger 19477–78). United States and certified by their cars manufactured before September 1, How to Read Comments submitted to manufacturer as conforming to all 2006, that were not originally the Docket: You may read the comments applicable FMVSS. manufactured to comply with all received by Docket Management at the The petitioner states that it compared applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety address and times given above. You may non-U.S. certified 2005 and 2006 Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for also view the documents from the Mercedes Benz S–Class passenger cars importation into the United States Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. manufactured before September 1, 2006 because they are substantially similar to Follow the online instructions for to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and vehicles that were originally accessing the dockets. The docket ID found the vehicles to be substantially manufactured for importation into and number and title of this notice are similar with respect to compliance with sale in the United States and that were shown at the heading of this document most FMVSS. certified by their manufacturer as notice. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue JK submitted information with its complying with the safety standards petition intended to demonstrate that (the U.S.-certified version of the 2005 to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, non-U.S. certified 2005 and 2006 and 2006 Mercedes Benz S-Class Mercedes Benz S–Class passenger cars passenger cars manufactured before some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you manufactured before September 1, 2006, September 1, 2006,) and they are as originally manufactured, conform to capable of being readily altered to periodically search the Docket for new material. many FMVSS in the same manner as conform to the standards. their U.S. certified counterparts, or are DATES: The closing date for comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: capable of being readily altered to on the petition is February 8, 2010. Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety conform to those standards. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151). Specifically, the petitioner claims that the docket and notice numbers above SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: non-U.S. certified 2005 and 2006

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

Mercedes Benz S–Class passenger cars seat belts, and (b) installation or Waybill Samples. A copy of this request manufactured before September 1, 2006 activation of U.S.-version software to may be obtained from the Office of are identical to their U.S. certified ensure that the seat belt warning system Economics, Environmental Analysis, counterparts with respect to compliance meets the requirements of this standard. and Administration. with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission The petitioner states that with the The waybill sample contains Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, exemption of the seat belts the occupant confidential railroad and shipper data; and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 crash protection system used in these therefore, if any parties object to these Windshield Defrosting and Defogging vehicles is identical to that found in the requests, they should file their Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and U.S.-certified model. objections with the Director of the Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Board’s Office of Economics, New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch Assemblies: Inspection of all vehicles Environmental Analysis, and System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and installation of U.S.-model seat belts Administration within 14 calendar days 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 on vehicles that are not already so of the date of this notice. The rules for Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 equipped. release of waybill data are codified at 49 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 225 Child Restraint CFR 1244.9. 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Anchorage Systems: Inspection of all Contact: Scott Decker, (202) 245– Control Rearward Displacement, 205 vehicles and installation of U.S.-model 0330. Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and child restraint anchorage system Door Retention Components, 207 components on vehicles not already so Kulunie L. Cannon, Seating Systems, 210 Seat Belt equipped. Clearance Clerk. Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk [FR Doc. 2010–85 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, Release: Inspection of all vehicles and BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 installation of U.S.-model components Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel on vehicles not already so equipped. System Integrity, and 302 Flammability The petitioner additionally states that DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of Interior Materials. a vehicle identification plate must be The petitioner also contends that the affixed to the vehicles near the left Surface Transportation Board vehicles are capable of being readily windshield post to meet the [STB Finance Docket No. 35340] altered to meet the following standards, requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. in the manner indicated: All comments received before the BNSF Railway Company—Temporary Standard No. 101 Controls and close of business on the closing date Trackage Rights Exemption—Union Displays: (a) replacement of the indicated above will be considered, and Pacific Railroad Company instrument cluster with a U.S.-model will be available for examination in the component; (b) installation or activation docket at the above addresses both Pursuant to a written trackage rights of the U.S.-version control and display before and after that date. To the extent agreement dated December 17, 2009, software and (c) installation of a U.S.- possible, comments filed after the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) model cruise control lever. closing date will also be considered. has agreed to grant temporary Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Notice of final action on the petition nonexclusive overhead trackage rights Devices and Associated Equipment: will be published in the Federal to BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) over installation of the following U.S.-model Register pursuant to the authority UP lines extending between: (1) UP components on vehicles that are not indicated below. milepost 93.2 at Stockton, CA, on UP’s already so equipped: (a) Front Oakland Subdivision, and UP milepost Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 219.4 at Elsey, CA, on UP’s Canyon sidemarker lamps; (b) headlamps; (c) (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority tail lamps with integral rear side marker at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Subdivision, a distance of approximately 126.2 miles; and (2) UP lamps. Issued on: January 4, 2010. Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and milepost 219.4 at Elsey, CA, and UP Claude H. Harris, Rims: Installation of a tire information milepost 280.7 at Keddie, CA, on UP’s placard. Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 61.3 Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: [FR Doc. 2010–56 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] miles. Installation of a U.S.-model passenger BILLING CODE 4910–59–P The transaction is scheduled to be side rearview mirror, or inscription of consummated on January 22, 2010, the the required warning statement on the effective date of the exemption (30 days face of that mirror. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION after the exemption is filed). Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: The nonexclusive overhead trackage Surface Transportation Board Installation of a supplemental key rights will permit BNSF to handle warning buzzer, or installation or Release of Waybill Data ballast trains of company material for activation of U.S.-version software to use in the maintenance of BNSF’s meet the requirements of this standard. The Surface Transportation Board has tracks. The trackage rights are temporary Standard No. 118 Power-Operated received a request from Laroe Winn in nature and are for a period from Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Moerman & Donovan on behalf of January 22, 2010 through December 10, Systems: Installation or activation of plaintiffs in connection with the 2010. U.S.-version software in the vehicle’s antitrust litigation pending in the As a condition to this exemption, any computer system to meet the United States District Court for the employees affected by the trackage requirements of this standard on District of Columbia captioned In re rights will be protected by the vehicles that do not already have this RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE conditions imposed in Norfolk and software installed or activated. ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL Docket Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash No. 1869 (WB10–015–12/17/09), for 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Protection: Inspection of all vehicles permission to use certain data from the Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and and replacement of any non U.S.-model Board’s 1985 through 2008 Carload Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), and any

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices 1119

employee affected by the DATES: Comments must be submitted on DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS discontinuance of those trackage rights or before February 8, 2010. AFFAIRS will be protected by the conditions set ADDRESSES: Submit written comments [OMB Control No. 2900–New (VA Form 10– out in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 0476)] Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 on the collection of information through http://www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s (1979). Agency Information Collection (Survey OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human This notice is filed under 49 CFR of Appropriate and Timely Diagnosis of 1180.2(d)(8). If the notice contains false Resources and Housing Branch, New Infectious Diseases) Activity Under or misleading information, the Executive Office Building, Room 10235, OMB Review exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316. revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– AGENCY: Veterans Health 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The New (Supplier)’’ in any correspondence. Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. filing of a petition to revoke will not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Notice. automatically stay the effectiveness of Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records the exemption. Stay petitions must be Service (005R1B), Department of SUMMARY: In compliance with the filed by January 15, 2010 (at least 7 days Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 before the exemption becomes NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice effective). announces that the Veterans Health An original and 10 copies of all 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail [email protected]. Please Administration, Department of Veterans pleadings, referring to STB Finance Affairs, will submit the collection of Docket No. 35340, must be filed with refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–New (Supplier).’’ information abstracted below to the the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Office of Management and Budget Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (OMB) for review and comment. The 0001. In addition, a copy of each Title: Department of Veterans Affairs PRA submission describes the nature of pleading must be served on Adrian L. the information collection and its Supplier Perception Survey. Steel, Jr., Mayer Brown LLP, 1999 K expected cost and burden and includes Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006– OMB Control Number: 2900–New the actual data collection instrument. 1101. (Supplier). DATE: Comments must be submitted on Board decisions and notices are Type of Review: New collection. or before February 8, 2010. available on our Web site at http:// ADDRESSES: Submit written comments www.stb.dot.gov. Abstract: The data collected will be used to improve the quality of services on the collection of information through Decided: December 31, 2009. delivered to VA customers and to help www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s OMB By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting develop key performance indicators in Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources Director, Office of Proceedings. and Housing Branch, New Executive acquisition and logistics operations Jeffrey Herzig, Office Building, Room 10235, across VA enterprise. Clearance Clerk. Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316. [FR Doc. E9–31405 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] An agency may not conduct or Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– BILLING CODE 4915–01–P sponsor, and a person is not required to New (VA Form 10–0476)’’ in any respond to a collection of information correspondence. unless it displays a currently valid OMB FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: control number. The Federal Register DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Notice with a 60-day comment period AFFAIRS Service (005R1B), Department of soliciting comments on this collection Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, [OMB Control No. 2900–New (Supplier)] of information was published on NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– November 4, 2009, on pages 57220– 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail Agency Information Collection 57221. [email protected]. Please (Supplier Perception Survey) Activity Affected Public: Business or other for- refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–New Under OMB Review profit and not-for-profit institutions. (VA Form 10–0476).’’ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Office of Acquisition, Logistics Estimated Annual Burden: 48,600 Titles: and Construction, Department of hours. a. Survey of Appropriate and Timely Veterans Affairs. Estimated Average Burden per Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases ACTION: Notice. Respondent: 32 minutes. (Leishmaniasis), VA Form 10–0476. b. Survey of Appropriate and Timely SUMMARY: In compliance with the Frequency of Response: On occasion. Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 Estimated Number of Respondents: (Malaria), VA Form 10–0476a. (44 U.S.C. 3501–21), this notice 90,240. OMB Control Number: 2900–New (VA announces that the Office of Dated: January 5, 2010. Form 10–0476). Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, Type of Review: New collection. By direction of the Secretary. Department of Veterans Affairs, will Abstract: The data collected will be submit the collection of information Denise McLamb, used to determine whether rural abstracted below to the Office of Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. veterans have difficulty receiving Management and Budget (OMB) for [FR Doc. 2010–121 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] appropriate and timely care for review and comment. The PRA BILLING CODE 8320–01–P infectious diseases acquired while in submission describes the nature of the Iraq or Afghanistan compared to information collection and its expected veterans residing in urban areas. cost and burden and includes the actual An agency may not conduct or data collection instrument. sponsor, and a person is not required to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 1120 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Notices

respond to a collection of information SUMMARY: In compliance with the Abstract: The data collected will be unless it displays a currently valid OMB Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 used to better understand the factors control number. The Federal Register (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice that impact Operation Enduring Notice with a 60-day comment period announces that the Veterans Health Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi soliciting comments on this collection Administration, Department of Veterans Freedom (OIF) veterans’ use of of information was published on Affairs, will submit the collection of healthcare services, both within and November 4, 2009, on pages 57219– information abstracted below to the outside of the VA. 57220. Office of Management and Budget The objectives of the study are to: (1) Affected Public: Individuals or (OMB) for review and comment. The Examine the stigma-related barriers to households. PRA submission describes the nature of VA health care; (2) document unique Estimated Total Annual Burden: 8 the information collection and its barriers to VA care for women and men; hours. expected cost and burden and includes and (3) provide reliable and valid Estimated Average Burden Per the actual data collection instrument. measures of barriers to care that can be Respondent: 5 minutes. DATE: Comments must be submitted on used by other researchers to study Frequency of Response: Annually. or before February 8, 2010. factors that influence veterans’ health Estimated Number of Respondents: ADDRESSES: Submit written comments care behaviors. 100. on the collection of information through An agency may not conduct or Dated: January 5, 2010. http://www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s sponsor, and a person is not required to By direction of the Secretary. OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human respond to a collection of information Denise McLamb, Resources and Housing Branch, New unless it displays a currently valid OMB Program Analyst,Enterprise Records Service. Executive Office Building, Room 10235, control number. The Federal Register Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316. Notice with a 60-day comment period [FR Doc. 2010–122 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– soliciting comments on this collection BILLING CODE 8320–01–P New (10–0478)’’ in any correspondence. of information was published on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: November 4, 2009, at page 57221. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Affected Public: Individuals or AFFAIRS Service (005R1B), Department of households. Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Estimated Annual Burden: 1,058. [OMB Control No. 2900–New (10–0478)] NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– Estimated Average Burden per 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail Respondent: 45 minutes. Agency Information Collection (Health- [email protected]. Please Frequency of Response: Annually. Care Use Survey for Enduring refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–New Estimated Number of Respondents: Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (10–0478).’’ (OEF/OIF) Veterans) Activity Under 1,410. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Review Dated: January 5, 2010. Title: Health-Care Use Survey for By direction of the Secretary: AGENCY: Veterans Health Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Denise McLamb, Administration, Department of Veterans Freedom (OEF/OIF) Veterans. Affairs. OMB Control Number: 2900–New Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. (10–0478). [FR Doc. 2010–123 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice. Type of Review: New collection. BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:14 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM 08JAN1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Friday, January 8, 2010

Part II

Department of Energy 10 CFR Part 431 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers); Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy, Energy Efficiency and 10. Split Incentive Between CCW Renewable Energy, Building Consumers and Users 10 CFR Part 431 Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 11. Rebound Effect Independence Avenue, SW., 12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis [Docket Number EERE–2006–STD–0127] 13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Washington, DC 20585 Telephone: (202) Period RIN 1904–AB93 586–7463. E-mail: E. National Impact Analysis—National [email protected]. Energy Savings and Net Present Value Energy Conservation Program: Energy Francine Pinto, Esq. or Betsy Kohl, Analysis Conservation Standards for Certain Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office 1. General Consumer Products (Dishwashers, of General Counsel, GC–71/72, 1000 2. Shipments Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Independence Avenue, SW., a. New Construction Shipments Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: b. Replacements and Non-replacements Ovens) and for Certain Commercial c. Impacts of Standards on Shipments (202) 586–7432, (202) 586–7796. E-mail: 3. Other Inputs and Industrial Equipment (Commercial [email protected], a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies Clothes Washers) [email protected]. b. Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies c. Annual Energy Consumption AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: d. Site-to-Source Conversion Renewable Energy, Department of Table of Contents e. Energy Used in Water and Wastewater Energy. Treatment and Delivery ACTION: Final rule. I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits f. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs A. The Standard Levels g. Discount Rates SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of B. Current Federal Standards for h. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices Energy (DOE) is adopting amended Commercial Clothes Washers F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis energy conservation standards for C. Benefits to Consumers of Commercial G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis commercial clothes washers (CCWs). Clothes Washers H. Employment Impact Analysis DOE has determined that amended D. Impact on Manufacturers I. Utility Impact Analysis E. National Benefits J. Environmental Assessment energy conservation standards for these F. Conclusion K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other types of equipment would result in II. Introduction Emissions Impacts significant conservation of energy, and A. Consumer Overview V. Discussion of Other Comments are technologically feasible and B. Authority A. Proposed Trial Standard Levels (TSLs) economically justified. C. Background for Commercial Clothes Washers DATES: The effective date of this rule is 1. Current Standards B. Proposed Standards for Commercial March 9, 2010. The standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking Clothes Washers III. General Discussion VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions established in today’s final rule will be A. Test Procedures A. Trial Standard Levels applicable starting January 8, 2013. B. Technological Feasibility B. Significance of Energy Savings ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 1. General C. Economic Justification read background documents, the 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 1. Economic Impacts on Commercial technical support document, transcripts Levels Customers of the public meetings in this C. Energy Savings a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period proceeding, or comments received, visit D. Economic Justification b. Commercial Consumer Subgroup 1. Specific Criteria Analysis the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource a. Economic Impact on Commercial c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Room of the Building Technologies Consumers and Manufacturers 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th b. Life-Cycle Costs a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) c. Energy Savings b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of c. Impacts on Employment Monday through Friday, except Federal Equipment d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity holidays. Please call Brenda Edwards at e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition e. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers the above telephone number for f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 3. National Impact Analysis additional information regarding g. Other Factors a. Amount and Significance of Energy 2. Rebuttable Presumption Savings visiting the Resource Room. (Note: IV. Methodology and Discussion of b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and DOE’s Freedom of Information Reading Comments on Methodology Benefits Room no longer houses rulemaking A. Equipment Classes c. Impacts on Employment materials.) You may also obtain copies B. Technology Assessment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of of certain previous rulemaking C. Engineering Analysis Equipment documents in this proceeding (i.e., 1. Efficiency Levels 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition framework document, advance notice of 2. Manufacturing Costs 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy proposed rulemaking, notice of D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 7. Other Factors proposed rulemaking, supplemental Analysis D. Conclusion 1. Equipment Prices VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review notice of proposed rulemaking), draft 2. Installation Cost A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 analyses, public meeting materials, and 3. Annual Energy Consumption B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility related test procedure documents from 4. Energy and Water Prices Act the Office of Energy Efficiency and a. Energy Prices C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// b. Water and Wastewater Prices Act www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs D. Review Under the National appliance_standards/commercial/ 6. Equipment Lifetime Environmental Policy Act clothes_washers.html. 7. Discount Rates E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 9. Equipment Energy Efficiency in the Base G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department of Case Reform Act of 1995

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1123

H. Review Under the Treasury and General energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and prescribes standards for CCWs Government Appropriations Act, 1999 6316(a)) The standards in today’s final manufactured on or after January 1, I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 rule, which apply to all CCWs, satisfy 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) These J. Review Under the Treasury and General these and other statutory criteria standards require that CCWs have a Government Appropriations Act, 2001 discussed in this notice. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 modified energy factor (MEF) of at least L. Review Under the Information Quality Table I.1 shows the amended standard 1.26 and a water factor (WF) of not more Bulletin for Peer Review levels that DOE is adopting today. These than 9.5. (Id.; 10 CFR 431.156) M. Congressional Notification standards will apply to all CCWs VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary manufactured for sale in the United C. Benefits to Consumers of Commercial States, or imported to the United States, Clothes Washers I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its on or after January 8, 2013. Benefits Table I.2 indicates the impacts on TABLE I.1—AMENDED ENERGY CON- commercial consumers of today’s A. The Standard Levels SERVATION STANDARDS FOR COM- amended standards. The economic impacts of the amended CCW standards The Energy Policy and Conservation MERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS Act 1 (EPCA), as amended (42 U.S.C. on commercial consumers as measured 6291 et seq.; EPCA), directs the Amended energy by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) Equipment class conservation savings are positive, even though the Department of Energy (DOE) to consider standards amended mandatory energy standards may increase some initial conservation standards for CCWs. (42 Top-loading commer- 1.60 Modified Energy costs. For example, typical top-loading U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(A)) Any such cial clothes wash- Factor/8.5 Water CCWs—the most common type amended energy conservation standard ers. Factor. currently being sold—have an average must be designed to ‘‘achieve the Front-loading com- 2.00 Modified Energy installed price of $760 and average maximum improvement in energy mercial clothes Factor/5.5 Water lifetime operating costs (discounted) of efficiency * * * which the Secretary washers. Factor. $3,286. To meet the amended standards, determines is technologically feasible DOE estimates that the average installed and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. B. Current Federal Standards for price of such equipment will increase 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, Commercial Clothes Washers by $214, which will be more than offset any new or amended standard must EPCA, as amended by the Energy by savings of $394 in average lifetime ‘‘result in significant conservation of Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), operating costs (discounted).

TABLE I.2—IMPLICATIONS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMERS

Average in- Average in- Average stalled stalled price life-cycle Median pay- Equipment class Energy conservation standard price * increase cost savings back period $ $ $ years

Top-loading CCWs ...... 1.60 Modified Energy Factor/8.5 Water Factor ...... 974 214 180 4.3 Front-loading CCWs ...... 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor ...... 1,365 23 ** 20 ** 0.4 * For a baseline model. ** DOE estimates that 96 percent of front-loading CCW consumers would purchase a model at the standard level even without amended standards. The values refer to average impacts for the 4 percent of consumers who would be affected by the standard.

D. Impact on Manufacturers cumulative energy over 30 years (2013– By 2043, DOE expects the energy 2043). This amount is equivalent to 2 savings from the standards to eliminate Using a real corporate discount rate of days of U.S. gasoline use. In addition, the need for approximately 18 MW of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates the industry DOE estimates the standards for CCWs electricity generating capacity. The net present value (INPV) of the CCW will save over 143 billion gallons of energy savings will result in cumulative industry to be approximately $62 cumulative water consumption over 30 million in 2008$. DOE expects the greenhouse gas emissions reductions in years (2013–2043). impact of today’s standards on the INPV 2013–2043 of approximately 5.1 million of manufacturers of CCWs to be a loss The national net present value (NPV) tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), or an of between 7.8 percent and 11.4 percent of CCW consumer benefit resulting from amount equal to that produced by of the INPV, which is approximately $5 the standards, considering the impacts approximately 5.1 million new cars in a to $7 million. Based on DOE’s of equipment sold in 2013–2043, is $0.4 year. Additionally, the standards will interviews with the manufacturers of billion using a 7-percent discount rate help alleviate air pollution by resulting CCWs, DOE expects possible loss of and $0.9 billion using a 3-percent in approximately 3.0 kilotons (kt) of employment for one manufacturer as a discount rate, in 2008$. This is the cumulative nitrogen oxide (NOX) result of the standards. estimated total value of future operating emission reductions and 0.0003 tons of cost savings minus the estimated cumulative mercury (Hg) emission E. National Benefits increased equipment costs, discounted reductions. The estimated net present DOE estimates that the energy to 2009. The NPV for consumers (at the monetary values of these emissions conservation standards will save a 7-percent discount rate) would exceed reductions at a 7-percent discount rate significant amount of energy—an industry losses, discussed above, due to (discounted to 2009 and expressed in estimated 0.10 quadrillion British energy efficiency standards by at least 2008$) are between $13 and $140 thermal units (Btu), or quads, of 80 times. million for CO2, between $0.4 and $4.2

1 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

million for NOX, and between $0.0 and from a recent interagency process, as beyond the lifetime of the equipment $0.6 million for Hg. At a 3-percent discussed in section VI.C.6. Although sold in the forecast period. discount rate, the estimated net present summing the value of operating savings Using a 7-percent discount rate for the values of these emissions reductions to the values of CO2 reductions provides annualized cost analysis, the cost of the (discounted to 2009 and expressed in a valuable perspective, please note the standards established in today’s final 2008$) are between $28 and $303 following. The national operating rule for CCWs is $23.4 million per year million for CO , between $0.8 million savings are domestic U.S. consumer 2 in increased equipment and installation and $8.4 million for NOX, and between monetary savings found in market costs, while the annualized benefits are $0.0 and $0.6 million for Hg. transactions while the CO2 value is The benefits and costs of today’s final based on a range of estimates of imputed $60.6 million per year in reduced rule can also be expressed in terms of marginal social cost of carbon, which equipment operating costs and $5.1 annualized values. Estimates of are meant to reflect the global benefits million in CO2 reductions, for a net annualized values for three economic of CO2 reductions. Furthermore, the benefit of $42.2 million per year. Using growth cases are shown in Table I.3. assessments of operating savings and a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the The annualized monetary values are the CO2 savings are performed with standards established in today’s final sum of the annualized national different computer models, leading to rule is $22.7 million per year in economic value of operating savings different time frames for analysis. The increased equipment and installation benefits (energy, maintenance and present value of national operating costs, while the benefits of today’s repair), plus the monetary values of the savings considers the impacts of standards are $72.8 million per year in benefits of carbon dioxide emission equipment sold in 2013–2043. The reduced operating costs and $5.9 reductions, monetized using a value of value of CO2, on the other hand is meant million in CO2 reductions, for a net $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. to reflect the present value of all future benefit of $56.0 million per year. The $20 value is a central interim value climate-related impacts, which go well

TABLE I.3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS (TSL 3)

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate Category Unit (AEO reference case) (AEO low-growth case) (AEO high-growth case) 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3%

Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings Million 2008$ ...... 60.6 72.8 54.9 65.3 66.6 80.4 Quantified Emissions Reductions ... CO2 (Mt) ...... 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.16 NOX (kt) ...... 0.087 0.194 0.087 0.194 0.087 0.194 Hg (t) ...... 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 Monetized Avoided Emissions Re- CO2 ...... 5.1 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.1 5.9 ductions (Million 2008$). NOX ...... 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Hg ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 23.4 22.7 21.9 20.9 24.6 23.9 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 42.5 56.3 38.3 50.6 47.3 62.7

* For CO2, benefits reflect value of $20/t, which is in the middle of the values considered by DOE for valuing the potential global benefits re- sulting from reduced CO2 emissions. For NOX and Hg, the benefits reflect values of $2,491/t and $17 million/t, respectively. These values are the midpoint of the range considered by DOE.

F. Conclusion II. Introduction result in lower energy and water costs, saving consumers $53 to $103 per year A. Consumer Overview The benefits (energy savings, LCC on their energy and water bills, again savings for CCW consumers, positive DOE is amending in today’s final rule depending on the equipment class. national NPV, and emissions energy conservation standard levels for When these savings are summed over reductions) to the Nation of the CCWs as shown in Table I.1. These the lifetime of the equipment, standards outweigh their costs (loss of standards apply to equipment consumers are expected to save an manufacturer INPV and LCC increases manufactured or imported on or after average of $20 to $190, depending on January 8, 2013. for some CCW consumers). Today’s the equipment class, utility costs, and DOE research suggests that standards also represent the maximum other factors. DOE estimates that the improvement in energy efficiency that is commercial consumers will see benefits from today’s standards even though payback period (PBP) for the more technologically feasible and efficient, higher-priced equipment will economically justified, and will result DOE expects the purchase price of the high efficiency CCWs to increase (by 2 range from 0.2 to 5.6 years, depending in significant energy savings. At present, on the equipment class. CCWs that meet the amended standard to 28 percent) from the average price of levels are commercially available. this equipment today. However, the energy efficiency gains are expected to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1125

B. Authority economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. prescribe an amended standard if 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) interested persons have established by a Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety EPCA also provides that, in deciding preponderance of the evidence that the of provisions designed to improve whether such a standard is standard is ‘‘likely to result in the energy efficiency. Part A–1 of Title III economically justified for equipment unavailability in the United States of (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes an such as CCWs, DOE must, after any product type (or class)’’ with energy conservation program for receiving comments on the proposed performance characteristics, features, ‘‘ ’’ Certain Industrial Equipment, which standard, determine whether the sizes, capacities, and volumes that are deals with a variety of commercial and benefits of the standard exceed its substantially the same as those generally industrial equipment (referred to burdens by considering, to the greatest available in the United States at the time ‘‘ ’’ hereafter as covered equipment ) extent practicable, the following seven of the Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. including CCWs, the subject of this factors: 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a)) rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6312; 6313(e)) Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is DOE publishes today’s final rule (1) The economic impact of the applicable to promulgating standards for pursuant to Part A–1 of Title III, which standard on manufacturers and most types or classes of equipment, provides for test procedures, labeling, consumers of the products or equipment including CCWs, that have two or more and energy conservation standards for subject to the standard; subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and CCWs and certain other equipment, and (2) The savings in operating costs 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Under this provision, authorizes DOE to require information throughout the estimated average life of DOE must specify a different standard and reports from manufacturers. The the covered products or equipment in level than that which applies generally test procedures for CCWs appear at 10 the type (or class) compared to any to such type or class of products or CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1 increase in the price, initial charges, or equipment ‘‘for any group of covered (pursuant to 10 CFR 431.154). maintenance expenses for the covered products which have the same function Section 136(a) and (e) of the Energy products that are likely to result from or intended use, if * * * covered Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005; Pub. the imposition of the standard; products within such group—(A) L. 109–058) added CCWs as equipment (3) The total projected amount of consume a different kind of energy from covered under EPCA and established energy (or, as applicable, water) savings that consumed by other covered standards for such equipment that is likely to result directly from the products within such type (or class); or manufactured on or after January 1, imposition of the standard; (B) have a capacity or other 2007.2 (42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 6313(e)) (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance-related feature which other These amendments to EPCA also require performance of the covered products or products within such type (or class) do that DOE issue a final rule by January equipment likely to result from the not have and such feature justifies a 1, 2010, to determine whether these imposition of the standard; higher or lower standard’’ than applies standards should be amended. (EPACT (5) The impact of any lessening of or will apply to the other products. (42 2005, section 136(e); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) competition, as determined in writing U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In If amended standards are justified, they by the Attorney General, that is likely to determining whether a performance- would become effective no later than result from the imposition of the related feature justifies such a different January 1, 2013. (Id.) standard; standard for a group of equipment, DOE (6) The need for national energy and EPCA provides criteria for prescribing must consider ‘‘such factors as the water conservation; and utility to the consumer of such a amended standards for covered (7) Other factors the Secretary products and equipment.3 As indicated feature’’ and other factors DOE deems considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any above, any amended standard for this 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) equipment must be designed to achieve rule prescribing such a standard must In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 include an explanation of the basis on the maximum improvement in energy U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)), efficiency that is technologically which DOE established such higher or establishes a rebuttable presumption lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) feasible and economically justified. (42 that any standard for covered products U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Federal energy conservation is economically justified if the Secretary requirements for commercial Additionally, EPCA provides specific finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the prohibitions on prescribing such equipment, including CCWs, generally consumer of purchasing a product supersede State laws or regulations standards. DOE may not prescribe an complying with an energy conservation amended or new standard for any concerning energy conservation testing, standard level will be less than three labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. equipment for which DOE has not times the value of the energy (and as 6297(a)–(c); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE can, established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. applicable, water) savings during the however, grant waivers of Federal 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(a)). Further, first year that the consumer will receive preemption for particular State laws or DOE may not prescribe an amended as a result of the standard, as calculated regulations, in accordance with the standard if DOE determines by rule that under the test procedure * * *’’ in place procedures and other provisions of such standard would not result in for that standard. See section III.D.2. EPCA found in 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ or Furthermore, EPCA contains what is Specifically, States that regulate an ‘‘is not technologically feasible or commonly known as an ‘‘anti- energy conservation standard for a type backsliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. of covered product for which there is a 2 Under the statute, a CCW must have an MEF of 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) This provision Federal energy conservation standard at least 1.26 and a WF of not more than 9.5. 3 The EPCA provisions discussed in the prohibits the Secretary from prescribing may petition the Secretary for a DOE remainder of this subsection directly apply to any amended standard that either rule that allows the State regulation to covered products, and also apply to certain covered increases the maximum allowable become effective with respect to such equipment, such as CCWs, by virtue of 42 U.S.C. energy use or decreases the minimum covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a). Note that the term ‘‘product’’ is used generally to refer to consumer appliances, while required energy efficiency of a covered 6297(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE ‘‘equipment’’ is used generally to refer to product or equipment. EPCA further must prescribe a rule granting the commercial units. provides that the Secretary may not petition if the Secretary finds that the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

State has established by a its Web site a document titled, on the analytical framework, models, preponderance of the evidence that its Rulemaking Framework for Commercial and tools (e.g., LCC and NIA regulation is needed to meet ‘‘unusual Clothes Washers and Residential spreadsheets) it was using to analyze the and compelling State or local energy Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and impacts of energy conservation * * * interests.’’ (42 U.S.C. Cooking Products (Framework standards for these products. In 6297(d)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Document).4 71 FR 15059 (March 27, conjunction with the November 2007 2006). The Framework Document C. Background ANOPR, DOE also posted on its Web described the procedural and analytical site the complete November 2007 1. Current Standards approaches that DOE anticipated using ANOPR technical support document to evaluate energy conservation EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, (TSD). The TSD included the results of standards for these products, and a number of DOE’s preliminary analyses prescribes energy conservation identified various issues to be resolved standards for CCWs manufactured on or in this rulemaking. In the November in conducting the rulemaking. DOE held 2007 ANOPR and at the public meeting, after January 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) a public meeting on April 27, 2006, to These standards require that CCWs have DOE invited comment in particular on present the Framework Document, to the following issues concerning CCWs: an MEF of at least 1.26 cubic feet of describe the analyses it planned to capacity (ft3) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (1) Product classes; (2) horizontal-axis conduct during the rulemaking, to designs; (3) technologies unable to be and a WF of not more than 9.5 gallons receive comments from interested 3 analyzed and exempted product classes, of water (gal) per ft . (Id.; 10 CFR parties, and to inform and facilitate 431.156) including potential limitations of interested parties’ involvement in the existing test procedures; (4) per-cycle 2. History of Standards Rulemaking rulemaking. DOE received 11 written energy consumption; (5) consumer comments in response to the Framework As discussed in the supplemental prices; (6) repair and maintenance costs; Document after the public meeting. (7) efficiency distributions in the base notice of proposed rulemaking DOE published the advance notice of case; (8) shipments forecasts; (9) base- (SNOPR), 74 FR 57738 (Nov. 9, 2009) proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) for this (the November 2009 SNOPR), the rulemaking on November 15, 2007 case and standards-case forecasted EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA (November 2007 ANOPR) (72 FR efficiencies; and (10) TSLs. 72 FR require that DOE issue a final rule by 64432), and held a public meeting on 64432, 64512–14 (Nov. 15, 2007). January 1, 2010, to determine whether December 13, 2007, to present and seek On October 17, 2008, DOE published standards for CCWs should be amended. comment on the November 2007 a NOPR (October 2008 NOPR) in the (EPACT 2005, section 136(e); 42 U.S.C. ANOPR analytical methodology and Federal Register, in which it proposed 6313(e)) If amended standards are results. The November 2007 ANOPR amended energy conservation standards justified, they would become effective included background information on the for certain products and equipment, no later than January 1, 2013. (Id.) history and conduct of this rulemaking. including CCWs. 73 FR 62034. The To initiate the current rulemaking to 72 FR 64432, 64438–39 (Nov. 15, 2007) energy conservation standards proposed consider energy conservation standards, In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE in the October 2008 NOPR for CCWs are on March 15, 2006, DOE published on described and sought further comment shown in Table II.1.

TABLE II.1—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE OCTOBER 2008 NOPR

Modified energy Equipment factor Water factor gal/ft3 ft3/kWh

Top-loading CCWs ...... 1.76 8.3 Front-loading CCWs ...... 2.00 5.5

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE ‘‘November 2008 public meeting’’), DOE availability and benefits of energy described and sought further comment invited comment in particular on the efficient appliances in the home on the analytical framework, models, following issues concerning CCWs: (1) appliance consumer market; (6) and tools (e.g., LCC and NIA The efficiency levels; (2) DOE’s discount rates other than 7 percent and spreadsheets) it was using to analyze the determination of the maximum 3 percent real to discount future impacts of energy conservation technologically feasible (max-tech) emissions reductions; (7) data that standards for this equipment. In efficiency levels for top-loading and might enable DOE to test for market conjunction with the October 2008 front-loading CCWs; (3) the magnitude failures or other specific problems for NOPR, DOE also posted on its Web site of possible equipment class shifting to CCWs; and (8) the determination of the complete TSD, which along with the front-loading CCWs; (4) the analysis and anticipated environmental impacts of October 2008 NOPR, is available at data relevant to the price elasticity of the standards proposed in the October http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ demand for calculating the anticipated 2008 NOPR, particularly with respect to appliance_standards/. The TSD energy and water savings at different the methods for valuing the expected included the results of a number of TSLs; (5) the analysis of consumer CO2 and NOX emissions savings. 73 FR DOE’s analyses. In the October 2008 knowledge of the Federal ENERGY 62034, 62133 (Oct. 17, 2008). NOPR and at the public meeting held on STAR program and its potential as a The October 2008 NOPR also November 13, 2008 (referred to as the resource for increasing knowledge of the included background information, in

4 This document is available on the DOE Web site appliance_standards/commercial/ at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ clothes_washers.html.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1127

addition to that set forth above, on the CCW efficiencies and the November with the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE history and conduct of this rulemaking. 2009 SNOPR. DOE subsequently tested also published on its Web site the 73 FR 62034, 62040–62041 (Oct. 17, the max-tech unit at an independent test complete TSD for the proposed rule, 2008). DOE presented the facility, revised the max-tech level, which incorporated the final analyses methodologies and results for the updated the analysis, and published the that DOE conducted, and contained October 2008 NOPR analyses at the November 2008 SNOPR to allow technical documentation for each step November 2008 public meeting. interested parties to comment on the of the analysis. The TSD included the Comments presented by interested revised efficiency level proposals. 74 FR engineering analysis spreadsheets, the parties during this meeting and 57738 (Nov. 9, 2009). LCC spreadsheet, and the national submitted in response to the October In the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE impact analysis spreadsheet. The 2008 NOPR concerning the accuracy of revised the proposed energy revised energy conservation standards the stated max-tech CCW efficiency conservation standards for CCWs. 74 FR proposed in the November 2009 SNOPR level led to a thorough investigation of 57738 (Nov. 9, 2009). In conjunction for CCWs are shown in Table II.2.

TABLE II.2—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOVEMBER 2009 SNOPR

Modified energy Equipment factor Water factor gal/ft3 ft3/kWh

Top-loading CCWs ...... 1.60 8.5 Front-loading CCWs ...... 2.00 5.5

In the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE public meeting and submitted in measure energy and water consumption identified issues on which it was response to the November 2009 NOPR of CCWs. 74 FR 57738, 57743 (Nov. 9, particularly interested in receiving concerning the sensitivity of the 2009). comments and views of interested analyses to the estimated market share The Appliance Standards Awareness parties. These included the following: split of CCW shipments among Project (ASAP) commented that DOE is (1) Whether the method of ‘‘loading’’ laundromats, multi-family housing, and currently reviewing its clothes washer clothes washers, or any other on-premises laundry applications led test procedure, and noted that there may characteristic commonly associated DOE to conduct a sensitivity analysis for be revisions as a result of that with traditional ‘‘top-loading’’ or ‘‘front- today’s final rule. See appendix 11C of rulemaking. ASAP asked whether, loading’’ clothes washers, are ‘‘features’’ the TSD. under EPACT 2005, those potential changes in the test procedure would within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. III. General Discussion 6295(o)(4) in EPCA and whether the apply to the determinations of availability of such feature(s) would A. Test Procedures compliance with this standard that is likely be affected by eliminating the EPCA directs DOE to use the same test currently proposed for CCWs. (ASAP, separate classes for these equipment Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at procedures for CCWs as those 6 types previously established by DOE; (2) established by DOE for residential pp. 13–16 ) EPCA states that ‘‘[w]ith the revised efficiency levels, including clothes washers (RCWs). (42 U.S.C. respect to commercial clothes washers, the revised max-tech level for top- 6314(a)(8)) 73 FR 62034, 62043–44 (Oct. the test procedures shall be the same as loading CCWs; (3) technological 17, 2008). While DOE believes the test procedures established by the feasibility of the proposed max-tech commercial laundry practices likely Secretary for RCWs under section CCW, including washing and rinsing differ from residential practices,5 DOE 6295(g) of this title.’’ (42 U.S.C. performance measures for CCWs and concluded in the October 2008 NOPR 6314(a)(8)) Therefore, CCWs will be population data for water heating CCWs; that the existing clothes washer test required to be tested to the DOE clothes (4) the determination of manufacturer procedure (at 10 CFR part 430, subpart washer test procedure that is effective at impacts, including the effects of B, appendix J1) adequately accounts for the time the testing is conducted. manufacturer tax credits and the efficiency rating of CCWs, and that B. Technological Feasibility competitive concerns; (5) the DOE’s methods for characterizing 1. General determination of environmental energy and water use in the October impacts; and (6) the newly proposed 2008 NOPR analyses adequately As stated above, any standards that energy conservation standards. 74 FR accounted for the consumer usage DOE establishes for CCWs must be 57738, 57800 (Nov. 9, 2009) After the patterns specific to CCWs. In response technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. publication of the November 2009 to the October 2008 NOPR, interested SNOPR, DOE also held a public meeting parties agreed with DOE’s conclusion 6 A notation in the form ‘‘ASAP, Public Meeting in Washington, DC, on November 16, Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 13–16’’ identifies an oral that the DOE clothes washer test comment that DOE received during the November 2009 (referred to as the ‘‘November 2009 procedure is adequate for rating CCWs. 16, 2009, SNOPR public meeting and which was public meeting’’), to hear oral comments DOE did not receive any comments recorded in the public meeting transcript in the on and solicit information relevant to objecting to the use of the DOE clothes docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006– STD–0127), maintained in the Resource Room of the revised proposed rule. The washer test procedure for CCWs. the Building Technologies Program. This particular November 2009 SNOPR included Therefore, for the November 2009 notation refers to a comment (1) made by the additional background information on SNOPR, DOE continued to consider the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) the history of this rulemaking. 74 FR during the public meeting, (2) recorded in existing DOE test procedure adequate to document number 67.4, which is the public 57738, 57742–43 (Nov. 9, 2009). meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this Comments presented by interested 5 CCWs are typically used more frequently and rulemaking, and (3) which appears on pages 13–16 parties during the November 2009 filled with a larger load than RCWs. of document number 67.4.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. the engineering and subsequent that there is equipment either in the 6316(a)) DOE considers a design option analyses in the NOPR (or SNOPR) stage. market or in working prototypes at all to be technologically feasible if it is in DOE published a list of evaluated of the efficiency levels analyzed in this use by the respective industry or if CCW technologies in the November notice. Therefore, DOE has determined research has progressed to the 2007 ANOPR. 72 FR 64432, 64458 (Nov. that all of the efficiency levels evaluated development of a working prototype. 15, 2007). For the reasons described in in this final rule, which are based upon ‘‘Technologies incorporated in the November 2007 ANOPR and in the retained design options, are commercial products or in working chapter 4 of the TSD, DOE is not technologically feasible. For more detail prototypes will be considered considering the following design on DOE’s method for developing CCW technologically feasible.’’ 10 CFR part options, as they do not meet one or technology options and the process for 430, subpart C, appendix A, section more of the screening criteria: Bubble screening these options, refer to the 4(a)(4)(i). Therefore, in each standards action, electrolytic disassociation of chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD. water, ozonated laundering, reduced rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible thermal mass, suds-saving, and analysis, based on information it has Levels gathered regarding existing technology ultrasonic washing. In the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE did not screen out When DOE considers an amended options and prototype designs. In any additional technology options that standard for a type (or class) of consultation with manufacturers, design were retained in the October 2008 equipment such as front-loading or top- engineers, and other interested parties, NOPR analyses. No comments were loading CCWs, it must ‘‘determine the DOE develops a list of design options received objecting to the technology maximum improvement in energy for consideration in the rulemaking. options which were screened out in the efficiency or maximum reduction in Once DOE has determined that a October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, energy use that is technologically particular design option is 62052 (Oct. 17, 2008). Therefore, DOE feasible’’ for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. technologically feasible, it further considered the same design options in 6295(p)(2) and 6316(a)) For the October evaluates each design option in light of the November 2009 SNOPR as those 2008 NOPR, DOE determined the max- the following three additional criteria: evaluated in the October 2008 NOPR. 74 tech efficiency levels for front-loading (a) Practicability to manufacture, install, FR 57738, 57743–44 (Nov. 9, 2009). and top-loading CCWs in the and service; (b) adverse impacts on This final rule considers the same engineering analysis, based on product utility or availability; or (c) design options as those evaluated in the published MEF and WF values of adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 November 2009 SNOPR. All the commercially available equipment. (See CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, evaluated technologies have been used chapter 5 in the NOPR TSD.) For the section 4(a)(3) and (4). All design (or are being used) in commercially October 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed the options that pass these screening criteria available equipment or working max-tech levels shown in Table III.1. 73 are candidates for further assessment in prototypes. DOE also has determined FR 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008).

TABLE III.1—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER MAX-TECH EFFICIENCY LEVELS PROPOSED IN THE OCTOBER 2008 NOPR

Max-tech level Equipment class MEF, ft 3/kW WF, gal/ft3

Top-Loading CCWs ...... 1.76 8.3 Front-Loading CCWs ...... 2.35 4.4

DOE received comments in response the November 2009 SNOPR is attainable feasibility is performance related to the to the October 2008 NOPR questioning by the max-tech CCW model. For the equipment’s primary function (i.e., the max-tech top-loading CCW November 2009 SNOPR, the proposed cleaning clothes), but DOE considers as efficiency rating presented in the front-loading max-tech level was the evidence of sufficient performance and November 2009 SNOPR. DOE examined same as in the October 2008 NOPR, consumer acceptance of the highest the max-tech efficiency level for top- whereas the proposed top-loading max- efficiency top-loading CCWs the loading CCWs, contracting an tech level was revised to 1.60 MEF/8.5 presence on the market of two such independent testing laboratory to verify WF based on the independent test models at or near the max-tech level the performance ratings for the max-tech results. 74 FR 57738, 57744 (Nov. 9, proposed in the November 2009 top-loading CCW model. The laboratory 2009). SNOPR. Therefore, for today’s final rule, results (based on a 3-unit sample) DOE received comments in response the max-tech levels for both classes are suggested that the max-tech model to the November 2009 SNOPR that achieves 1.63 MEF/8.4 WF. Based on objected to the max-tech efficiency level the max-tech levels identified in the this information, DOE revised the max- for top-loading CCWs based on lack of November 2009 SNOPR. These levels tech top-loading CCW level in the wash performance and consumer are shown in Table III.2 below. For more November 2009 SNOPR downward to acceptance of the max-tech top-loading details on this selection of max-tech 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF, a level proposed in CCW model in a commercial laundry levels, see section IV.C.1.a of today’s the October 2008 NOPR as a ‘‘gap-fill’’ setting. DOE agrees that inherent in a final rule. level and one which DOE concluded in determination of technological

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1129

TABLE III.2—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER MAX-TECH EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Max-tech level Equipment class MEF, ft3/kW WF, gal/ft3

Top-Loading CCWs ...... 1.60 8.5 Front-Loading CCWs ...... 2.35 4.4

C. Energy Savings b. Life-Cycle Costs and extent of such impact (42 U.S.C. DOE forecasted energy savings in its DOE considered life-cycle costs of 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii) and 42 national energy savings (NES) analysis CCWs, as discussed in the November U.S.C. 6316(a)). through the use of an NES spreadsheet 2009 SNOPR. 74 FR 57738, 57751–55 To assist the Attorney General in tool, as discussed in the November 2009 (Nov. 9, 2009). DOE calculated the sum making such a determination, DOE SNOPR. 74 FR 57738, 57744 (Nov. 9, of the purchase price and the operating provided the U.S. Department of Justice 2009). expense—discounted over the lifetime (DOJ) with copies of the November 2009 One criterion that governs DOE’s of the equipment—to estimate the range proposed rule and the TSD for review. adoption of standards for CCWs is the in LCC benefits that commercial The Attorney General’s response is standard must result in ‘‘significant’’ consumers would expect to achieve due discussed in section VI.C.5 below, and energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to the standards. is reprinted at the end of this rule. Impacts on manufacturers are also and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) While EPCA does c. Energy Savings not define the term ‘‘significant,’’ the discussed in section IV.G below. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Although significant conservation of f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense energy is a separate statutory In considering standards for CCWs, Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, requirement for imposing an energy the Secretary must consider the need of 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that conservation standard, EPCA also the Nation to conserve energy (42 U.S.C. Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy requires DOE, in determining the 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 42 U.S.C. savings in this context to be savings that economic justification of a proposed 6316(a)). The Secretary recognizes that were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ DOE’s standard, to consider the total projected energy conservation benefits the Nation estimates of the energy savings for the energy savings that are expected to in several important ways. The non- energy conservation standards adopted result directly from the standard (42 monetary benefits of the standards are in today’s final rule are nontrivial. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 42 U.S.C. likely to be reflected in improvements to Therefore, DOE considers them 6316(a)). As in the November 2009 the security and reliability of the ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of SNOPR (74 FR 57738, 57755–61 (Nov. 9, Nation’s energy system. Today’s section 325 of EPCA. 2009)), for today’s final rule, DOE used the NIA spreadsheet results in its standards will also result in D. Economic Justification consideration of total projected savings environmental benefits. As discussed in the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE has 1. Specific Criteria that are directly attributable to the standard levels DOE considered. considered these factors in adopting As noted earlier, EPCA provides today’s standards. 74 FR 57738, 57765– seven factors to be evaluated in d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 67 (Nov. 9, 2009). determining whether an energy Equipment g. Other Factors conservation standard is economically In selecting today’s standard levels, justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and 42 DOE sought to avoid new standards for In determining whether a standard is U.S.C. 6316(a)) The following sections CCWs that would lessen the utility or economically justified, EPCA directs the discuss how DOE has addressed each of performance of that equipment (42 Secretary to consider any other factors those seven factors in this rulemaking. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 42 U.S.C. deemed relevant (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 42 U.S.C. a. Economic Impact on Commercial 6316(a)). As with the November 2009 6316(a)). In adopting today’s amended Consumers and Manufacturers SNOPR (74 FR 57738, 57745 (Nov. 9, 2009)), today’s standards do not involve standards, the Secretary found no DOE considered the economic impact changes in equipment design or unusual relevant factors other than those of the amended CCW standards on installation requirements that would identified elsewhere in today’s final commercial consumers and reduce the utility or performance of rule. manufacturers. For consumers, DOE CCWs. measured the economic impact as the 2. Rebuttable Presumption change in installed cost and life-cycle e. Impact of Any Lessening of Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA operating costs, i.e., the LCC. (See Competition states that there is a rebuttable sections IV.D and IV.E and chapter 8 of DOE considers any lessening of presumption that an energy the TSD.) DOE investigated the impacts competition likely to result from conservation standard is economically on manufacturers through the standards. Accordingly, as discussed in justified if the additional cost to the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). the November 2009 SNOPR (74 FR consumer that meets the standard level (See sections IV.G and VI.C.2, and 57738, 57745, 57762–63 (Nov. 9, 2009)), is less than three times the value of the chapter 13 of the TSD.) The economic DOE requested that the Attorney first-year energy savings resulting from impact on commercial consumers and General transmit to the Secretary a the standard (and water savings in the manufacturers is discussed in detail in written determination of the impact, if case of a water efficiency standard), as the November 2009 SNOPR. 74 FR any, of lessening of competition likely calculated under the applicable DOE 57738, 57751–55, 57761–65, 57769–77 to result from the proposed standards, test procedure (42 U.S.C. (Nov. 9, 2009). together with an analysis of the nature 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate higher than what the max-tech for top- beyond the capability of a traditional, or values that calculate the PBP for loading machines can attain today, and even a non-traditional, top-load CCW. consumers of equipment meeting effectively eliminate top-loading CCWs (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. potential energy conservation standards, from the market. 73 FR 62034, 62049– 67.4 at pp. 39–40; AHAM, No. 67.12 at which includes, but is not limited to, 50 (Oct. 17, 2008). This determination pp. 2–3) GE, Whirlpool, and Alliance the 3-year PBP contemplated under the remained unchanged in the November agree that DOE has the ability to define rebuttable presumption test discussed 2009 SNOPR, 74 FR 57738, 57746–47, two CCW equipment classes. (GE, above. (See chapter 8 of the TSD.) although DOE sought comment as to (1) Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. However, DOE routinely conducts a full whether the method of ‘‘loading’’ clothes 44; Whirlpool, Public Meeting economic analysis that considers the washers, or any other characteristic Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 45; Alliance, full range of impacts, including those to commonly associated with traditional Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, ‘‘top-loading’’ or ‘‘front-loading’’ clothes 46). AHAM further stated that if DOE and environment, as required under 42 washers, such as presence or absence of moves forward with a single equipment U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. agitators, ability to interrupt cycles, and class, top-loading CCWs would not be 6316(a). The results of this analysis possibly others, are ‘‘features’’ within the able to meet a standard that would be serve as the basis for DOE to definitively meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) in fairly easy for front-loaders to achieve. evaluate the economic justification for a EPCA; and (2) whether the availability With two equipment classes, energy and potential standard level (thereby of such feature(s) would likely be water savings could be achieved by both supporting or rebutting the results of affected by eliminating the separate top-loaders and front-loaders, albeit at a any preliminary determination of classes for these equipment types different level. According to AHAM, economic justification). previously established by DOE. DOE this reduces the possibility that received comments in response to the IV. Methodology and Discussion of consumers would repair older, less November 2009 SNOPR both in support Comments on Methodology efficient top-loading CCWs, because of and opposed to establishing two new high efficiency top-loaders would DOE used several previously equipment classes for CCWs. These be available. (AHAM, Public Meeting developed analytical tools in setting comments are described in more detail Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 40–41; today’s standard. Each was adapted for in the following paragraphs. AHAM, No. 67.12 at p. 2.) this rule. One of these analytical tools The Association of Home Appliance Alliance commented that ‘‘ ‘top- is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and Manufacturers (AHAM), GE Consumer & PBP. Another calculates national energy Industrial (GE),7 Whirlpool Corporation loading’ is a ‘feature’ within the savings and national NPV. A third tool (Whirlpool), and Alliance Laundry meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295, because it is the Government Regulatory Impact Systems (Alliance) stated that they provides consumers the opportunity to ’’ Model (GRIM), the results of which are support the definition of separate purchase lower cost CCWs. Alliance the basis for the MIA, among other equipment classes for top-loading and stated that purchase cost is a primary methods. In addition, DOE developed front-loading CCWs. (AHAM, Public reason why top-loading clothes washers an approach using the National Energy Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 33; hold an approximate 65-percent market Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate AHAM, No. 67.12 at p. 2;8; GE, Public share, since consumers can choose the impacts of energy efficiency standards Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 44; lower-cost design option of a top- for CCWs on electric utilities and the GE, No. 67.9 at p. 1) Whirlpool, Public loading door for a vertical-axis machine environment. The TSD appendices Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 45; versus the higher-cost front-loading discuss each of these analytical tools in Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. 1; Alliance, door design for a horizontal-axis detail. Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. machine. Alliance noted that there is As a basis for this final rule, DOE has 46. AHAM stated that EPACT 2005 one unique horizontal-axis design that continued to use the spreadsheets and allows DOE to establish different incorporates a loading door on top that approaches explained in the November classes, directing DOE to create ‘‘classes essentially opens a door on the side of 2009 SNOPR. DOE used the same of products, depending on their energy the horizontally rotatable spin tub, but general methodology but has revised use or performance characteristics.’’ described this design as ‘‘unpopular.’’ some of the assumptions and inputs for AHAM noted that there is a bimodal Alliance commented that, although the this final rule in response to comments distribution of efficiencies between top- cost difference between vertical-axis from interested parties. The following loading and front-loading CCWs. and horizontal-axis models has paragraphs discuss these revisions. According to AHAM, the standards decreased, a comparably featured standard capacity top-loader remains far A. Equipment Classes proposed for the front-load equipment class in terms of MEF and WF are less costly than a standard capacity In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE front-loader due to the inherent proposed separate equipment classes 7 In its December 9, 2009, letter, GE states that it differences in components. Alliance and accompanying standards for top- ‘‘adopt[s] by reference the comments on the SNOPR listed variable speed motors, loading and front-loading CCWs with that [it] understand[s] will be submitted by the sophisticated motor electronic controls, separate standards for each class. 73 FR Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers heavy mass weights, and door assembly (AHAM) * * * ’’ Therefore, comments submitted by 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE AHAM, designated by comment number 67.12 in costs as the key components determined in the October 2008 NOPR the docket for this rulemaking, should be contributing to the cost of front-loading that two equipment classes were interpreted as representing GE’s and well as designs. More specifically, Alliance warranted because the method of AHAM’s views. stated that a front-loader door must ‘‘ ’’ 8 A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, No. 67.12 at p. loading had been previously 2’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by the incorporate high-temperature impact- determined, under DOE rulemakings for Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers resistant glass, a door/tub boot seal, a residential clothes washers, to be a (AHAM), (2) recorded in document number 67.12 very sophisticated lock system, and a ‘‘feature,’’ as defined by EPCA, and that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking (Docket heavy-duty hinge system to withstand No. EE–2006–STD–0127), maintained in the because an amended standard for a Resource Room of the Building Technologies the abuse in a commercial environment. single equipment class might set the Program, and (3) which appears on page 2 of In contrast, Alliance described a top- MEF for all CCWs at a level significantly document number 67.12. loader door as a simple metal stamping

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1131

with a low-cost hinge and a fairly tumbling in a front-loading design than equipment class, there is also an impact simple micro-switch to remove power the vigorous mechanical action on the route operators 10 and multi- from the basket drive mechanism during imparted by an agitator in a top-loading housing complexes, most of which have spin. Additionally, Alliance stated that design. Alliance cited the February 2009 specialized in either top-loading or front-loaders require a ‘‘pedestal’’ to edition of Consumer Reports magazine front-loading CCWs. According to raise the loading door in response to as stating that ‘‘front-loader cycle times Whirlpool, a major reinvestment in consumer objections to stooping so far are getting longer; many take more than terms of technical training and parts down. Alliance estimated the retail 90 minutes per load,’’ and that the inventories would be required for those price of such a pedestal as $250, which article shows that front-loader cycle companies that have invested in top- along with an estimated $250 retail times are 70–115 minutes compared to loading CCWs if a standard resulted in price difference between a baseline top-loader cycle times of 30–85 minutes. the phaseout of such machines. efficiency top-loader and a comparably Alliance noted that all front-loaders in Whirlpool also stated that CCWs are featured front-loader, would result in a the Consumer Reports article with cycle often refurbished and moved down- top-loader costing consumers at least times less than 85 minutes scored market, possibly multiple times during $500 less than a front-loader. Therefore, poorly in Consumer Union’s ‘‘wash a particular unit’s lifetime, making Alliance concluded that top-loading is rating’’ compared to front-loaders with CCWs available to many socioeconomic ‘‘undeniably’’ a feature for consumers cycle times of 85 minutes or longer, classes. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting because of its low cost. (Alliance, Public while top-loaders with cycle times of 55 Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 45; Whirlpool, Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 46– minutes achieved wash ratings of ‘‘good’’ No. 67.11 at p. 1; see also AHAM, No. 48; Alliance, No. 66.4 Letter at pp. 1– to ‘‘very good.’’ Alliance concludes that 67.12 at p. 3) AHAM stated that route 2,9 Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 2.) Whirlpool top-loader door location is associated operators have accumulated expertise described a top-loading horizontal-axis with providing consumers with their on either the top-loading or front- RCW as a rare configuration that is not expected good washing performance at loading platform. (AHAM, No. 67.12 at produced or sold domestically by any a convenient washing cycle time of p. 3) major manufacturers of laundry around 55 minutes. (Alliance, Public Whirlpool also commented that equipment, and one that does not Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 49; separate equipment classes would be effectively meet the needs of either top- Alliance, No. 66.4 Letter at p. 2; consistent with energy conservation loading or front-loading RCW Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 3) GE agreed that standards for refrigeration, which have consumers. According to Whirlpool, the cycle time and cost to the consumer are separate classes for side-by-side, top openings of such units are small and very important differentiators between freezer, and bottom freezer refrigerators, prone to snagging of clothes. Further, top-loading and front-loading CCWs and room air conditioners, since the Whirlpool stated that this configuration which, along with consumer preference, product classes reflect home is not available in CCWs. (Whirlpool, counsel in favor of maintaining the two configuration, consumer choice, and No. 67.11 at p. 4.) separate equipment classes. (GE, Public consumer utility. (Whirlpool, Public Alliance also stated that top-loading is Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 44– Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 46; a ‘‘feature’’ because of its convenience to 45) AHAM provided a similar consumer Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at pp. 1–2) the user. A user is not required to stoop utility rationale in support of two Earthjustice (EJ) stated that the or bend to load a top-loader, and equipment classes, specifying level of separation in EPCA of refrigerator by according to Alliance most consumers vibration, ergonomic factors (bending), method of access was codified by prefer this convenience, though no history, and experience of use, cycle Congress as two distinct standards. supporting data was provided. Alliance interruption, and preference as According to EJ, because Congress stated that another convenience is the consumer utilities and functions. enacted a single standard for all CCWs, ability to add a garment to a clothes load (AHAM, No. 67.12 at p. 3) Whirlpool what it chose to do for refrigerators is in a washer which has already initiated agreed that vibration, ergonomics, cycle not entirely applicable to the CCW a wash cycle. For top-loaders, such time, and familiarity are factors which rulemaking. (EJ, Public Meeting action only requires lifting the lid to consumers use in selecting top-loading Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 49–50) drop the item in. Alliance commented CCWs, and added configuration, noise, EJ stated that Congress has provided that most front-loaders require time to value proposition, and sour smell. several examples of the product unlock the door and possibly drain the (Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. 1) Whirlpool attributes that it anticipated as wash water, then require the user to also commented that it does not believe constituting ‘‘features’’ under EPCA: stoop or bend to add the garment to the high efficiency top-loaders are viable in ‘‘automatic defrost, through the door ice, washer. (Alliance, Public Meeting the commercial market because clothes size of room air conditioners, and noise Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 48–49; rollover necessary for effective washing levels.’’ H. Rep. 100–11, at 23 (1987). EJ Alliance, No. 66.4 Letter at p. 2; and rinsing is not possible in an commented that this demonstrates that Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 2) Finally, overloaded machine. Whirlpool states Congress indicated that the fact of Alliance commented that convenient that overloading is a common practice access is a feature (for example, through cycle times, as defined by typical top- by CCW users because they are paying the door ice), but did not suggest that loading washers, are important to users. by the load. (Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. the method of access is also a feature According to Alliance, front-loading 4) Alliance also commented that, for the (for example, side-by-side versus washers have longer cycle times because September 21, 2009, RCW Framework stacked configuration refrigerators) there is less mechanical action in public meeting, Whirlpool had stated within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. that one-fifth of consumers who bought 6295(o)(4). (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. 5) 9 A notation in the form ‘‘Alliance, No. 66.4 Letter EJ commented that subparagraph (B) at pp. 1–2’’ identifies pages 1–2 of a written a front-loading washer have gone back to a top-loading washer. (Alliance, No. of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) is permissive, comment submitted by Alliance entitled ‘‘Is Top- ‘‘ ’’ Loading a Feature Within the Meaning of EPCA?’’ 66.4 Letter at p. 2) and provides that DOE shall create This letter was entered as comment number 66.4 in the docket for this rulemaking, along with a written Whirlpool commented that, in 10 Route operators supply laundry equipment and comment submitted by Alliance entitled ‘‘Response addition to the impact on the user of a maintain facilities in exchange for a percentage of to DOE Commercial Clothes Washer SNOPR.’’ standard applicable to a single the laundry revenue.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

separate classes for products based on meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), it did and remanding the petition for further the presence of ‘‘a capacity or other not follow that EPCA would require review.12 EJ stated that the court, while performance-related feature’’ only if separate equipment classes. EJ stated not directly addressing the ‘‘features’’ ‘‘such feature justifies a [different] that, in enacting the EPCA language, issue, indicated that DOE can’t just look standard.’’ According to EJ, EPCA then Congress was ‘‘careful to note’’ that the at the market today, but must assess sets out very expansive criteria for DOE ‘‘prohibition against grouping all what the market will be when the to apply in determining whether a given varieties of a covered product into a standard takes effect. EJ stated that DOE feature justifies a unique standard. EJ single product class was a narrow one.’’ would have to find by preponderance of stated that, although DOE must consider (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. 6) the evidence that a strong standard the utility of the feature, DOE is free to A valid standard may entail some minor would eliminate top-loaders from the supplement this consideration with any loss of characteristics, features, sizes, etc.; for market in 2013. EJ noted that it did not other factors it deems appropriate. (EJ, this reason, the Act requires that believe that top-loaders would be No. 67.5 at p. 3) ‘‘substantially the same,’’ though not eliminated at that time, based on the EJ stated that 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) necessarily identical, characteristics or existence of very efficient top-loading provides that DOE may separate covered features should continue to be available. [42 RCWs currently in the market. (EJ, equipment into distinct classes when U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)] also does not apply to Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. necessary to prohibit the adoption of trivial effects in which a standard might result. 43; EJ, No. 67.5 at pp. 6–7) standards that eliminate certain product EJ further commented that no other attributes. EJ further stated that DOE’s H. Rep. 100–11, at 23 (1987). attributes of CCWs which DOE authority to adopt standards that group According to EJ, the inclusion of this identified in the November 2009 SNOPR all varieties of the given covered ‘‘substantially the same’’ language shows as possibly providing consumer utility, equipment into a single class is only that Congress did not intend the such as the presence or absence of barred when such a standard is likely to resulting unavailability of any and every agitators and the ability to interrupt result in the unavailability of features feature to be a barrier to the imposition cycles, require protection under 42 that are substantially the same as those of strong efficiency standards, but rather U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). EJ stated that DOE has currently available; i.e., EPCA only a standard would be barred only if it neither explained why the presence or mandates the creation of multiple would have a substantial impact on absence of agitators would provide any equipment classes when the failure to product utility. EJ stated that the ability consumer utility, nor considered that do so would eliminate certain truly to access the CCW from the top is high efficiency CCWs may still be unique equipment attributes from the ‘‘substantially the same’’ as the ability to equipped with an agitator. EJ also stated market. According to EJ, this statutory access the unit from the front because that horizontal-axis CCWs available scheme forecloses an interpretation that either delivers the same basic today are often able to be interrupted EPCA mandates the designation of functionality of accessing the unit for mid-cycle. In addition, EJ commented distinct equipment classes for top- loading and unloading. Thus EJ states that, although Alliance cited an article loading and front-loading CCWs. (EJ, that DOE is not barred from maintaining which discussed cycle times for top- No. 67.5 at pp. 3–4) EJ provided four a single set of efficiency standards for loaders and front-loaders, Alliance did separate reasons why it believes 42 all CCWs, even assuming that those not contend that the variation in cycle U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) prohibits DOE from standards would have the consequence time is an issue for CCWs. EJ stated that adopting standards that would treat all of eliminating all top-loading CCWs the range of cycle times for top-loaders CCWs as a single equipment class: (1) from the market. (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. 6) and front-loaders broadly overlap, and The method of loading a CCW is not a EJ also did not agree with AHAM’s because front-loaders typically have a ‘‘feature’’ within the meaning of 42 statement that a distinction in energy lower ending remaining moisture U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) 11; (2) the ability to use between two types of CCWs would content (RMC) than top-loaders, the load a CCW from the front is justify a separate equipment class. total washing and drying times required substantially the same as the ability to According to EJ, that would be at odds for top-loading and front-loading CCWs load from the top; (3) maintaining a with the intent of EPCA. EJ stated that are likely to be equivalent. (EJ, No. 67.5 single CCW category is not likely to lead whenever two examples of equipment at p. 8) to the unavailability of top-loaders; and use different amounts of energy, the The Pacific Gas and Electric (4) top-loading CCWs possess no other intent is for a standard to eliminate the Company, Southern California Gas attributes requiring protection under 42 one that uses too much energy. (EJ, Company, and San Diego Gas Company U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (EJ, No. 67.5 at pp. 4– Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at (the California Utilities) also supported 8) pp. 41–42) a single equipment class, arguing for EJ commented that if, for the sake of EJ also commented that it is sensible reasons similar to those articulated by EJ argument, the method provided to to adopt a strong unitary standard that that the method of loading and other access a CCW is a ‘‘feature’’ within the applies to both top-loading and front- characteristics commonly associated loading CCWs. EJ stated that it had with the method of loading are not 11 EJ stated that the method of loading a CCW is already made the case that the method features, and that a single class would not a feature because: (1) DOE research on the of loading is not a feature under 42 not likely result in the unavailability of public’s valuation of clothes washer characteristics, U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), but even if DOE did presented in a December 2000 Technical Support top-loading CCWs. (California Utilities, Document, shows that door placement was not determine that the method of loading is No. 67.10 at pp. 2–3) Further, the among the top ten most important attributes, and a feature, a strong standard would not California Utilities stated that, although the value of this attribute is likely even lower now eliminate top-loading CCWs from the given the increased prevalence of front-loaders; (2) CCWs and RCWs are similar in the FTC eliminated the distinction between top- market. (EJ, Public Meeting Transcript, technologies, design, and operating loading and front-loading machines in its labeling No. 67.4 at pp. 42–43) EJ also characteristics, a ‘‘feature’’ of RCWs is requirements (65 FR 16134 (March 27, 2000)); and commented on the recent Ninth Circuit not necessarily a ‘‘feature’’ of CCWs. (3) the legislative history supports the conclusion decision reversing DOE’s denial of the that door placement is not a feature because (California Utilities, No. 67.10 at p. 3) examples cited suggest that while access itself may California Energy Commission’s (CEC) be a feature, the method of access is not. (EJ No. petition for exemption from existing 12 California Energy Commission versus DOE, 67.5 at 4) energy efficiency standards for RCWs Case No. 07–71576 (October 28, 2009).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1133

The California Utilities also asserted future CCW rulemakings. (California and the November 2009 SNOPR that that the LCC savings of a single Utilities, No. 67.10 at pp. 3–4) separate equipment classes for top- equipment class with standards at Regarding impacts to competition as loading and front-loading CCWs were various front-loading TSLs could these impacts relate to the equipment warranted because the method of increase as much at $304 as compared class issue, EJ stated that it would not loading had been previously determined to the LCC savings estimated for the agree with DOE if the Department to be a ‘‘feature’’ under rulemakings for standards proposed in the November determines that a single standard cannot RCWs and a single standard would 2009 SNOPR. According to the be adopted because of impacts to the eliminate top-loading CCWs from the California Utilities and ASAP, American manufacturers and impacts on market. DOE analysis for this final rule, Council for an Energy-Efficiency competition. EJ and the Joint Comment including evaluation of comments Economy, American Rivers, National believe those impacts are overstated. (EJ, submitted by interested parties, has Consumer Law Center, Natural Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at identified at least one consumer utility Resources Defense Council, Northeast pp. 30–31; Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at related to the method of loading clothes, Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and pp. 4–5; see also California Utilities, No. specifically for CCWs, which represents Seattle Public Utilities (the Joint 67.10 at pp. 4–5) EJ asserted that it is a ‘‘feature’’ for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Comment), cost-effectiveness of not only the lessening in competition, 6295(o)(4). Consequently, DOE has standards based on a single equipment but rather the effects of such lessening, retained two equipment classes for class best serves long-term public that DOE must consider. EJ stated that CCWs for this standard. interest. (California Utilities, No. 67.10 the DOJ, in its letter to DOE on this Specifically, DOE believes that the at p. 4; Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at p. 3) rulemaking, failed to consider low longer cycle times of front-loading The Joint Comment commented that barriers to entry into the CCW market in CCWs versus cycle times for top-loaders DOE is concerned that at the highest its analysis of the impacts to are likely to significantly impact TSL, significant numbers of potential competition, and that consequently, it consumer utility. In commercial and consumers of front-loading CCWs would would be irrational for DOE to conclude multi-housing settings, it is beneficial to choose to purchase a less efficient top- that a single standard would result in consumers with multiple, sequential loading CCW instead. (Joint Comment, any significant impact on competition laundry loads to approximately match No. 67.6 at p. 2) According to ASAP and in the CCW market. (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. CCW cycle times to those of the dryers the Joint Comment, this underscores the 9) EJ, ASAP, and the Joint Comment to maximize throughput and minimize interchangeability between top-loading also asserted that DOE must consider wait times, and wash times of 70–115 and front-loading CCWs in a adopting a tiered standard, or granting minutes would be longer than most commercial setting and that this Alliance a temporary waiver, as ways to drying cycles. Because the longer wash interchangeability could be so broad minimize any impacts on competition cycle times for front-loaders arise from and substantial that it would facilitate that may result from imposition of a the reduced mechanical action of potential recapture of market share by single standard. (EJ, No. 67.5 at 9–10; agitation as compared to top-loaders, less efficient but less expensive top- ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. DOE believes such longer cycles may be loaders. ASAP stated that the real 67.4 at pp. 166–167; Joint Comment, No. required to achieve the necessary distinction between top-loaders and 67.6 at p. 6; see also California Utilities, cleaning, and thereby constitute a front-loaders is price point rather than No. 67.10 at pp. 4–5) performance-related utility of front- any specific consumer utility. Therefore, In response to the above comments, loading CCWs versus top-loading CCWs ASAP and the Joint Comment DOE notes that EPCA provides the under the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). recommended a single equipment class criteria under which DOE may define DOE notes that access without for CCWs. ASAP also stated that route classes for covered equipment: stooping is not a consumer utility that operators are operating in a one would warrant the definition of separate A rule prescribing an energy conservation equipment class environment today, standard for a type (or class) of covered equipment classes. DOE agrees that top- and managing the issues that Whirlpool products shall specify a level of energy use loaders eliminate the need for stooping, identified. (ASAP, Public Meeting or efficiency higher or lower than that which while front-loaders, in the absence of a Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 46, 99–102; applies (or would apply) for such type (or pedestal, require such action. DOE Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at pp. 2–3) class) for any group of covered products further notes, however, that commercial ASAP and the Joint Comment stated which have the same function or intended clothes dryers are front-loading as well, that the standard proposed for front- use, if the Secretary determines that covered so it believes that those consumers that loaders is already met by almost 97 products within such group— dry their clothing loads are already • Consume a different kind of energy from percent of the front-loaders on the that consumed by other covered products accustomed to stooping. In addition, market, and since DOE has seldom, if within such type (or class); or DOE observes that many laundromat ever, proposed a standard that has such • Have a capacity or other performance- and multi-housing applications have a low impact on the marketplace, ASAP related feature which other products within installed the CCWs on a platform to suggests there are some difficulties in such type (or class) do not have and such effect the same elevation as a going forward with two equipment feature justifies a higher or lower standard manufacturer-supplied pedestal would, classes. (ASAP, Public Meeting from that which applies (or will apply) to and that the cost of installing such a Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 53–54; Joint other products within such type (or class). platform in the event that the owner/ In making a determination under this Comment, No. 67.6 at p. 2) The paragraph concerning whether a operator decides that preventing California Utilities estimated that a performance-related feature justifies the stooping is important is likely to be single equipment class with standards establishment of a higher or lower standard, minimal. set at 2.35 MEF/4.4 WF would achieve the Secretary shall consider such factors as DOE is aware that a top-loading, 50 percent more energy savings and the utility to the consumer of such a feature, horizontal-axis CCW had been available over 200 percent more water savings and such other factors as the Secretary deems previously. Due to the inherently higher over the next 30 years than the appropriate. efficiency of a horizontal-axis platform, standards proposed in the November 42 U.S.C. 6295(q); see also 6316(a). it is likely that such a design could 2009 SNOPR, and that additional energy As stated above, DOE concluded achieve a higher MEF and lower WF and water savings would be captured in preliminarily in the October 2008 NOPR than the max-tech top-loading CCW

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

efficiency level assumed for this (i.e., 2015) is not authorized. In contrast, levels comparable to some horizontal- analysis. DOE research determined, 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(C) states in relevant axis CCWs.14 High efficiency, vertical- however, that this particular washer part that amendments to the standards axis platforms that do not employ an platform was withdrawn from the ‘‘shall apply to products manufactured agitator have been sold into the RCW market based on a lack of suitability for after a date which is five years after’’ the market for several years, but have yet to commercial settings. However, even if a effective date of the previous be released in a CCW form. DOE noted top-loading, horizontal-axis CCW was amendment. DOE believes that the in the November 2009 SNOPR that it again marketed, it is likely that such phrase ‘‘after a date which is 5 years expected manufacturers would continue washers would have cycle times similar after’’ (emphasis added) may allow more to introduce new features first in the to those of other horizontal-axis flexibility for a tiered standard. DOE higher-volume residential markets machines and, therefore, would not also believes that the provisions of 42 before transitioning them to commercial likely provide substantially the same U.S.C. 7194 that allow for the grant of applications. However, DOE noted that consumer utility as top-loading, an exemption from an energy it is not aware of such technologies vertical-axis machines. conservation standard promulgated by being incorporated in either DOE also does not consider first cost DOE are not an appropriate justification commercially available CCWs or a ‘‘feature’’ that provides consumer for the promulgation of a particular working CCW prototypes, and therefore utility for purposes of EPCA. DOE efficiency standard in the first instance. did not consider them in the SNOPR acknowledges that price is an important analyses. DOE concluded in the B. Technology Assessment consideration to consumers, but DOE November 2009 SNOPR that it believed accounts for such consumer impacts in For the technology assessment in the it had adequately considered RCW the LCC and PBP analyses conducted in November 2009 NOPR analyses, DOE technologies that may be applicable to support of this rulemaking. considered all RCW and CCW CCWs in its technology assessment. 74 Given the above discussion on cycle technology options that it was aware FR 57738, 57747–48 (Nov. 9, 2009). times, DOE concludes, consistent with have been incorporated into working Because DOE did not receive any its preliminary conclusion in the prototypes or commercially available comments on the technology options October 2007 NOPR and November clothes washers at the time of the analyzed in the November 2009 SNOPR, 2008 SNOPR, that top-loading involves analysis. DOE noted in the November DOE continues to conclude in today’s consumer utilities that, in the context of 2009 SNOPR that it considered as final rule that it has adequately CCWs, are a feature for purposes of 42 design options many technologies that considered RCW technologies that may U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). For the reasons stated are found in both RCWs and CCWs. Of be applicable to CCWs in its technology in section VI.D of the preamble, DOE the technology options screened out, assessment. believes that the standards established only suds-saving 13 has appeared for top-loading and front-loading CCWs previously as a feature in commercially C. Engineering Analysis achieve the maximum improvements in available RCWs. DOE concluded in the The purpose of the engineering energy efficiency that are November 2009 SNOPR that suds- analysis is to characterize the technologically feasible and savings was an RCW feature that was relationship between the incremental economically justified. DOE further appropriately screened out for the CCW manufacturing cost and efficiency believes that the top-loading standard, analysis. 74 FR 57738, 57747 (Nov. 9, improvements of CCWs. DOE used this set at the max-tech efficiency level, can 2009). cost-efficiency relationship as input to be achieved by all manufacturers by the For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE the PBP, LCC, and NES analyses. As time compliance with the standards is also gathered and analyzed data discussed in the November 2009 required. Therefore, DOE concludes that published by CEC, CEE, and the SNOPR, DOE conducted the engineering top-loading CCWs would not be ENERGY STAR Program to provide an analysis for this rulemaking using the eliminated from the market by the overview of the energy efficiency levels efficiency-level approach, which amended energy conservation achieved in CCWs and RCWs. DOE provides the incremental costs of standards. found that all front-loading CCWs on moving to higher energy efficiency In response to the comments related the market at that time were more levels, without regard to the particular to impacts on competition, DOE efficient than top-loading CCW models. design option(s) used to achieve such believes its analysis accurately describes No top-loading CCW listed in these increases. For this analysis, DOE relied the impacts of the various TSLs, databases had an MEF greater than 1.76, upon efficiency data published in including the standards established whereas the majority of front-loading multiple databases, including those today, on the low-volume manufacturer CCWs were listed as having MEFs published by CEC, CEE, and ENERGY (LVM). See section VI.C.2 of the greater than 2.0. Similarly, no top- STAR, which were supplemented with preamble for further discussion of these loading CCWs were rated as having a limited laboratory testing, data gained impacts. In addition, EPCA does not WF below 8.0, whereas the majority of through engineering analysis, and permit DOE to establish a tiered front-loading CCWs had rated WFs standard for CCWs. 42 U.S.C. below 7.0. In contrast, DOE research 14 Typically, vertical-axis clothes washers are 6313(e)(2)(A)(ii) states that an amended suggested that the most efficient accessed from the top (also known as ‘‘top-loaders’’), ‘‘ while horizontal-axis clothes washers are accessed standard for CCWs shall apply to vertical-axis RCWs achieved efficiency from the front (also known as ‘‘front-loaders’’). products manufactured 3 years after the However, a limited number of residential date on which the final amended 13 A suds-saving feature allows water from one horizontal-axis clothes washers which are standard is published.’’ DOE interprets wash cycle to be reused in the next wash cycle. accessible from the top (using a hatch in the wash After agitation, sudsy wash water is pumped into basket) are currently available, although DOE is this provision to mean that the amended a separate storage tub, remaining there until the unaware of any such CCWs on the market. For the standard must apply to all CCWs next wash cycle. While the water is stored, soil purposes of this analysis, the terms ‘‘vertical-axis’’ manufactured 3 years after the date of settles to the bottom of the tub. During the next and ‘‘top-loading’’ will be used interchangeably, as publication of this final rule, and that wash cycle, all but an inch of the water is pumped will the terms ‘‘horizontal-axis’’ and ‘‘front-loading.’’ back into the washer tub for use again. Clothes Additionally, clothes washers that have a wash imposing some intermediate standard at washers with the suds-saving feature must be larger basket whose axis of rotation is tilted from that time (i.e., 2013) and the final than typical clothes washers in order to horizontal are considered to be horizontal-axis amended standard at some future date accommodate the additional storage tub. machines.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1135

primary and secondary research. 74 FR 1. Efficiency Levels a change from the max-tech level 57738, 57748–51 (Nov. 9, 2009). Chapter In the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE proposed in the October 2008 NOPR, 5 of the TSD contains a detailed proposed the following efficiency levels based on DOE testing and analysis of the discussion of the engineering analysis for CCWs, shown in Table IV.1, in max-tech top-loading CCW model. No methodology. which the max-tech top-loading level changes were made to the efficiency was designated at efficiency level 2 levels proposed in the October 2008 (1.60 MEF/8.5 WF). The top-loading NOPR for front-loading CCWs in the max-tech efficiency level representated November 2009 SNOPR.

TABLE IV.1—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER EFFICIENCY LEVELS PROPOSED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2009 SNOPR

Modified energy factor, ft3/kWh/water 3 Efficiency level factor, gal/ft Top-loading Front-loading

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.5 1.72/8.0 1 ...... 1.42/9.5 1.80/7.5 2 ...... 1.60/8.5 2.00/5.5 3 ...... N/A 2.20/5.1 4 ...... N/A 2.35/4.4

DOE noted in the November 2009 standard level based on the performance Alliance stated that the front-loading SNOPR that the max-tech top-loading of Alliance’s best-performing top-loader. max-tech efficiency level should have a CCW is currently marketed only to on- Alliance stated that, while no WF of 5.0 rather than 4.4. Alliance premise laundry facilities and is not yet industry standard performance test stated that it tested a competitive front- offered with a coin-box or smart card procedure exists for CCWs, it believes loading CCW model that had a WF of reader option for laundromat or multi- wash and rinse performance would be 4.5 and found that it did not wet the housing laundry use. DOE research affected at the top-loading max-tech center of the clothes load during the indicated that the max-tech CCW is level, because the max-tech model does wash tumble portion of the cycle. based on a standard vertical-axis RCW not allow true hot or warm water, unlike Therefore, Alliance stated that platform (i.e., one with an agitator) with existing traditional CCWs which offer consumer utility would be negatively similar construction and components as site-supplied hot water typically of 120 affected. (Alliance, Public Meeting the CCW models marketed by that degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and above and Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 139–140; manufacturer to commercial user-acceptable 90 °F to 110 °F warm Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 3). Alliance laundromats. No proprietary water. Alliance stated that the max-tech further stated that consumer utility in a technologies were observed, and, thus, top-loading model only provides 108 °F CCW must go beyond just getting DOE stated in the November 2009 to 112 °F water when the hot setting is clothes wetted, applying some SNOPR that it believes that all CCW selected, which Alliance considers to be mechanical action and then extraction manufacturers could market vertical- warm water. Similarly, Alliance stated of the moisture. Alliance commented axis clothes washers with similar that when the user selects a warm that DOE did not assess if the proposed performance in time for the compliance setting on the max-tech top-loader, the max-tech CCW cleans clothes to user date of the proposed rule. 74 FR 57738, unit only provides 71 °F to 73 °F wash expectations. According to Alliance, the 57749–50 (Nov. 9, 2009). water, which Alliance considers to be ability of a CCW to clean clothes DOE research, conducted as part of cold water. Alliance believes that CCW sufficiently is a central issue in this the November 2009 SNOPR, also users that pay for hot water should rulemaking, and stated that ‘‘A suggested that commercial acceptance receive hot water. Otherwise, CCW rulemaking will be overturned as depends on wash performance. DOE users could not clean clothes as well as arbitrary and capricious if ‘the [agency] recognized that any amended energy consumers with access to RCWs. has failed to respond to specific conservation standard could result in a Further, Alliance commented that challenges that are sufficiently central to lessening of certain equipment utility rinsing is minimal for the max-tech top- its decision.’ ’’ Horsehead Resource Dev. and hence interviewed interested loader, unlike typical complete Co. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246, 1263 (DC parties for the November 2009 SNOPR submersion of the clothes load that Cir 1994) (citations omitted). (Alliance, to better understand the potential would allow sand, heavy sediment, or No. 66.4 at pp. 6–7). impacts of energy efficiency strategies suds trapped between the layers to be GE commented that, while it supports that manufacturers might employ in properly removed. Alliance stated that the standards proposed in the November their equipment. Although interested the max-tech top-loading model has 2009 SNOPR for top-loading and front- parties suggested that the max-tech received almost no acceptance by the loading CCWs, it is concerned that the model does not provide acceptable industry, based on comments it received max-tech top-loading CCW model is washing and rinsing performance from its top 20 multi-housing designed for on-premises laundry, targets, especially when overloaded, customers, and that DOE has not tested which is a relatively limited segment of they did not submit evidence of such its ability to clean clothes. Therefore, the commercial market. GE stated that performance degradation. 74 FR 57738, Alliance believes that max-tech top- the max-tech model has not been shown 57750 (Nov. 9, 2009). loader model is not appropriate for the to be viable in the harsher laundromat EJ commented that, if top-loading commercial laundry market. (Alliance, environment where CCWs are subject to CCWs are required to be retained in the Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at tougher conditions such as overloading. commercial market under amended pp. 22–23, 29); Alliance, No. 66.4 at pp. GE also requested DOE’s test data on the standards, DOE must consider a third 4, 7, 9; Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 3). max-tech top-loader model. (GE, Public

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 58; based the selection of the top-loading Washer Services, Inc; Angel Coin GE, No. 67.9 at pp. 1–2). max-tech level at efficiency level 2 on Service, Inc.; Automatic Industries; Whirlpool stated that a top-loading test results for the max-tech model and Automatic Laundry Services Co., Inc.; CCW max-tech level of 1.76 MEF/8.3 its belief that 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF B&H Coin Laundry Service; Caldwell WF can be attained with sufficient represented the maximum CCW and Gregory, LLC; CALECO; Cincinnati investment of financial and human performance achievable by all Coin Laundry, Inc.; Coin Meter capital. However, Whirlpool considers manufacturers without material harm. Company; Commercial Laundries, Inc.; this level a considerable stretch target At the time of the analysis, Alliance’s Continental Laundry Systems that it has not achieved even in a highest efficiency top-loading CCW was Incorporated; Excalibur Laundries, Inc.; prototype platform. Whirlpool believes rated at 1.55 MEF/8.6 WF. DOE believes F&B Coin Laundry Route; Family Pride that the front-loading CCW max-tech that Alliance’s model and the max-tech Laundries; FMB Laundry, Inc.; Jetz level could be slightly higher, since the model incorporate similar technologies, Service Co., Inc.; Launderama, LLC; CEE database lists a model at 2.23 MEF/ and that the energy and water usage of Laundry Equipment Corp.; National 4.3 WF. Whirlpool believes this level is the two models are not sufficiently Coin Washer and Service Company, at or near the capabilities of known different as to warrant the inclusion of Inc.; and San Diego Laundry Equipment technologies that are viable in the an additional efficiency level slightly Co. (the Multiple Route Operators). commercial environment. (Whirlpool, below the max-tech level. Given the These comments were originally sent to No. 67.11 at p. 2). Northwest Power and constraints of the rulemaking schedule, DOJ in response to the October 2008 Conservation Council (NPCC) asked DOE cannot evaluate an undetermined NOPR, and were resubmitted by whether, because the max-tech top- number of CCW models in order to Alliance along with its own comments loading CCW model did not meet its confirm that no other unit which is in response to the November 2009 rated MEF and WF, DOE would rated at lower efficiencies than the SNOPR. Ninety-five percent of all route consider testing units at other levels, proposed max-tech model could in operators who commented on the particularly high-efficiency models, to actuality achieve higher performance, November 2009 SNOPR stated that they make sure the performance is as nor does DOE have any evidence, did not consider RCWs suitable for CCW advertised. (NPCC, Public Meeting particularly regarding durability, to applications. The principal reasons Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 57–59). demonstrate that the max-tech top- given were the lack of durability, lack of In response, DOE notes that, in the loading CCW model, while designed for resistance to vandalism, and other absence of an accepted, standardized on-premises laundry applications, specified and unspecified performance test procedure for CCW wash and rinse cannot be utilized successfully in other issues. Most of the Multiple Route performance, it cannot evaluate the commercial laundry facilities such as Operators expressed reluctance to try cleaning capabilities of various laundromats or multi-family housing high efficiency top-loading clothes considered max-tech models. DOE settings. Therefore, DOE has retained washers due to perceived wash agrees that proper wetting and the max-tech top-loader efficiency level performance issues. Additionally, distribution of the detergent and rinse for today’s final rule based on the max- several of the Multiple Route Operators water in the machine is critical for tech top-loading CCW model proposed stated that had tried out such washers cleaning performance. However, DOE in the November 2009 SNOPR. and replaced them with regular top- did not receive any evidence that the loading clothes washers due to ASAP suggested that DOE should not max-tech top-loading model does not consumer complaints regarding wash limit consideration of max-tech models achieve such action, only the inference performance and other issues. (Multiple to CCWs, but that DOE should also that, because the unit employs spray Route Operators, No. 67.8, pp. 1–3 15) consider clothes washer products from rinse, that it would not exhibit DOE notes that multiple the residential market. According to acceptable rinse performance. DOE manufacturers stated during interviews ASAP, the distinctive nature of the CCW further notes that it did not receive any that high efficiency RCWs utilize market has been characterized by the evidence that somewhat reduced water technologies that are not suitable in need for durability and resistance to temperatures at hot and cold settings harsher commercial settings such as overloading and misuse, which is would preclude acceptable cleaning laundromats and multi-family housing typical of laundromats and multi- performance. DOE notes the existence of due to environmental factors such as housing laundry rooms. But CCWs for multiple wash and rinse performance overloading and abuse. Among these on-premises laundry facilities are also standards such as AHAM HLW–1, but manufacturers were suppliers of high being considered in this rulemaking, the industry has yet to come to a efficiency top-loading RCWs, i.e., and they typically are subject to less consensus regarding the minimum wash manufacturers that would face the harsh conditions than models destined and rinse performance that an RCW or lowest conversion costs in the industry for laundromats and multi-family CCW should achieve. In the interim, to modify a given RCW model for CCW housing, Thus, ASAP questioned why DOE relies on manufacturers to market use. Additionally, DOE considered the RCWs would not be considered for the and sell only those products that they comments submitted by the Multiple max-tech levels if CCWs designed for feel perform adequately. Route Operators with experience DOE concluded for the November on-premises laundry are. (ASAP, Public 2009 SNOPR that the performance of the Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 61– 15 The Multiple Route Operators’ letters were top-loading CCW model was 1.63 MEF/ 62, 64–65) Southern California Gas attached to the Alliance letter, comment number 8.4 MEF instead of the rated value of Company (SCG) commented that DOE 67.8, in response to the November 2009 SNOPR. A 1.76 MEF/8.3 WF on which the max- should consider durability as well as notation in the form ‘‘Multiple Route Operators, No. 67.8 at pp. 1–3’’ identifies a written comment (1) tech level for the October 2008 NOPR efficiency in selecting the max-tech made by some or all of the Multiple Route was based. DOE does not have evidence models. (SCG, Public Meeting Operators, (2) recorded in document number 67.8 to suggest that any other CCWs Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 63) Additional that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking (Docket currently on the market can achieve comments regarding the applicability of No. EE–2006–STD–0127), maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies 1.76 MEF/8.3 WF, nor that technology RCWs in CCW application were Program, and (3) which appears on pages 1–3 of exists to do so without significantly received (along with other comments) each of the letters submitted by the Multiple Route impacting cleaning performance. DOE from 20 route operators: All Valley Operators.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1137

utilizing high efficiency top-loading temperatures despite very cold water competitors. However, unlike its larger clothes washers in a commercial setting. supply temperatures. DOE indicated in rivals, most of the LVM’s unit Lastly, DOE received no evidence that the November 2009 SNOPR that it had shipments are in the CCW market, all the technologies used in a max-tech received no data on the extent or size of where the LVM has significant market top-loading RCW can be expected to be this impact or of the affected share. Also unlike its diversified ready for inclusion in CCWs by the population. DOE sought comment, competitors, this company exclusively compliance date of today’s final rule including population and efficiency manufactures laundry equipment. A while offering similar or better wash impact data, to describe this issue. 74 review of the Securities and Exchange performance, given the very different FR 57738, 57750 (Nov. 9, 2009) Commission (SEC) 10–K documents operational environments (short wash Alliance and NPCC discussed filed by the LVM revealed that, as of cycles, among other factors). Hence, whether a water heating CCW would be 2005, this company derived 22 percent DOE concludes that high efficiency top- measured as having higher water of its total revenue from the sale of loading RCW models should not be heating energy consumption under the front- and top-loading clothes washers considered representative of the DOE clothes washer test procedure than and 87 percent of that income was from efficiency levels that top-loading CCWs a non-water heating CCW, given the the commercial market.16 As a result, can achieve until the technologies inlet water temperature requirements. the LVM could be affected required to achieve such efficiency Alliance stated that the test procedure disproportionately by any rulemaking levels have been successfully would require measurement of energy concerning CCWs compared to its demonstrated in CCWs. consumption with the heater on. competitors, for whom CCWs represent (Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, For front-loaders, DOE observes that less than 2 percent of total clothes multiple models from several No. 67.4 at pp. 66–72) Whirlpool stated that it does not washer sales. Alliance stated in manufacturers, including Alliance, are response to the October 2008 NOPR that rated with a WF of 4.5 or lower. DOE produce any water heating CCWs and does not believe this is a significant it is the LVM and that it has neither the believes that the presence of these CCW purchasing power nor the funding to models on the commercial market segment of the market. In the absence of further data on the affected population support wide-ranging research and suggests that sufficient cleaning development programs like those of its performance is able to be achieved at or efficiency impacts, DOE is adopting energy conservation standards for front- larger, more diverse rivals. As a result, such WF levels. Further, DOE did not the manufacturing costs for Alliance are receive any evidence that the max-tech loading CCWs both with and without electric heaters for the reasons inherently higher compared to those of model, rated at a 4.4 WF, could not discussed in section VI.D. its rivals. Alliance believes that the cost demonstrate wash performance on par DOE did not receive further of compliance with the top-loading with consumer utility requirements, nor information regarding the market share CCW standard proposed in the October if, in fact, it did not, that a WF of 5.0 or efficiency impact of water heating 2008 NOPR would be especially high if would provide wash performance that CCWs, but agrees that it likely does not Alliance were required to introduce would be deemed suitable, DOE notes represent a significant segment of the non-traditional agitator designs to meet that the max-tech level proposed in the CCW market. In the absence of it. 74 FR 57738, 57762 (Nov. 9, 2009). November 2009 SNOPR had additional data, DOE determined that it DOE research, conducted as part of approximately 5 percent higher MEF will retain the max-tech front-loading and 2 percent higher WF than the model the November 2009 SNOPR, suggests CCW level that was proposed in the that the proposed efficiency level for that Whirlpool suggests. While the November 2009 SNOPR. proposed max-tech level therefore was vertical-axis clothes washers can be met slightly less stringent in terms of water 2. Manufacturing Costs with conventional, non-proprietary consumption than the level Whirlpool technology that is on the market today. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE Since the October 17, 2008 NOPR suggested, DOE believes that the higher presented manufacturing cost estimates meeting, DOE received no further energy consumption of the proposed based on the November 2007 ANOPR comments on the manufacturing cost level is the primary factor to consider in analysis, revised in response to detailed curves. For the November 2009 SNOPR, defining a max-tech level. Therefore, CCW manufacturer feedback obtained at DOE retained all cost estimates DOE concluded that the max-tech levels the NOPR stage for equipment at each presented in the October 2008 NOPR at proposed in the November 2009 SNOPR efficiency level. 73 FR 62034, 62055–56 the retained efficiency levels, though are technologically feasible, and it has (Oct. 17, 2008). These manufacturing each value was scaled by the Producer retained the efficiency levels shown in costs were the basis of inputs for a Price Index (PPI) multiplier for the Table IV.1 for today’s final rule. number of other analyses in this commercial laundry equipment industry DOE received comments in response rulemaking, including the LCC, national (NAICS 333312) between 2007 and 2008 to the October 2008 NOPR that front- impact, and GRIM analyses. to update the costs in the October 2008 loading CCWs with electric heaters have As described in the October 2008 17 an MEF of 1.96, which would not meet NOPR, DOE found that an LVM operates NOPR to 2008$. These are shown in the proposed front-loading standards. in both the residential and CCW Table IV.2. According to these comments, markets. DOE considers this consumers in some parts of the northern manufacturer to be low-volume because 16 SEC documents pertaining to the LVM are available online at http://sec.gov/. United States need such heaters to its annual shipments in the combined 17 PPI data is maintained by the Bureau of Labor supplement their hot water supply in RCW and CCW market are significantly Statistics and is available at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ order to maintain proper wash lower than those of its larger

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IV.2—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS PROPOSED IN NOVEMBER 2009 SNOPR

Modified energy factor ft3/kWh/ Incremental cost $ 3 Efficiency level water factor gal/ft Top-loading Front-loading Top-loading Front-loading

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.5 1.72/8.0 0.00 0.00 1 ...... 1.42/9.5 1.80/7.5 77.60 0.00 2 ...... 1.60/8.5 2.00/5.5 134.99 14.21 3 ...... N/A 2.20/5.1 N/A 39.34 4 ...... N/A 2.35/4.4 N/A 66.16

Because DOE did not receive any new manufacturing costs presented in the efficiency levels for today’s final rule. information on the manufacturing cost November 2009 SNOPR at the retained Table IV.3 shows these costs. curves, DOE retained all the incremental

TABLE IV.3—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS

Modified energy factor ft3/kWh/ Incremental cost $ 3 Efficiency level water factor gal/ft Top-loading Front-loading Top-loading Front-loading

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.5 1.72/8.0 0.00 0.00 1 ...... 1.42/9.5 1.80/7.5 77.60 0.00 2 ...... 1.60/8.5 2.00/5.5 134.99 14.21 3 ...... N/A 2.20/5.1 N/A 39.34 4 ...... N/A 2.35/4.4 N/A 66.16

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period maintenance and repair costs, burden of increased initial costs for Analysis equipment lifetime, and discount rates. more efficient CCWs for many In response to the requirements of Commenting on DOE’s use of LCC and consumers who are currently using low- section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, DOE PBP results to evaluate the economic cost, low-efficiency CCWs. There are conducted LCC and PBP analyses to impacts of possible amended energy several possible reasons for the disparity evaluate the economic impacts of conservation standards on CCW between observed consumer behavior possible amended energy conservation consumers, Mr. Gayer stated that if the and the results of DOE’s consumer standards on CCW consumers. This private benefits to consumers of a more financial analysis which may include: section of the notice describes these efficient CCW outweigh the private (1) Limited consumer information and analyses. DOE conducted the analysis costs of a more efficient CCW, then information processing capabilities and using a spreadsheet model developed in there will be a market for high efficiency (2) the high transaction costs of fully Microsoft (MS) Excel for Windows 2007. CCWs and regulation would not be evaluating LCC and other characteristics The LCC is the total consumer necessary. He added that if consumers of available CCWs prior to purchase or expense over the life of the equipment, are unwilling to purchase a high lease. In addition, there remain a including purchase and installation efficiency CCW without the regulation, number of environmental externalities expense and operating costs (energy and then this suggests they are not willing that are not currently reflected in energy water expenditures, repair costs, and to pay the higher CCW price in order to and water prices, which cannot be maintenance costs). The PBP is the accrue lower future energy costs. (Gayer, considered by consumers and which are number of years it would take for the No. 67.7 at p. 1) not included in DOE’s LCC and PBP consumer to recover the increased costs DOE agrees with the observation that analyses.. DOE did not receive or obtain of a higher-efficiency equipment many CCW purchasers are unwilling to sufficient information to provide a through energy savings. To calculate the pay the higher cost of a more efficient detailed explanation of why CCW LCC, DOE discounted future operating CCW in the face of potential operating purchasers tend to minimize first costs costs to the time of purchase and savings benefits. DOE disagrees that this in the face of financially feasible gains summed them over the lifetime of the implies that it is using the wrong cost that are likely to accrue from increased equipment. DOE measured the change of capital in its analysis. DOE does not energy efficiency. DOE believes that its in LCC and the change in PBP in general assume in its analysis that use of LCC and PBP results to evaluate associated with a given efficiency level unregulated markets will equilibrate to the economic impacts of possible relative to a base case forecast of a state where consumer decisions are amended energy conservation standards equipment efficiency. The base case perfectly aligned with private benefits on CCW consumers is appropriate given forecast reflects the market in the and costs. DOE estimated the cost of the information that is available. absence of amended mandatory energy capital based on information regarding DOE was unable to develop a survey- conservation standards. As part of the the cost of borrowing and the based consumer sample for CCWs LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed opportunity cost of investment for CCW because the U.S. Energy Information data that it used to establish equipment owners. Based on this cost of capital, Administration’s (EIA) Commercial prices, installation costs, annual energy DOE found that the operating cost Building Energy Consumption Survey consumption, energy and water prices, benefits for many CCWs exceed the (CBECS) does not provide the necessary

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1139

data to develop one.18 Instead, DOE associated with a baseline CCW. To SNOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE did established the variability and calculate the LCC savings and PBP not introduce changes to either the LCC uncertainty in energy and water use by associated with equipment meeting and PBP analyses methodology defining the uncertainty and variability higher efficiency standards, DOE described in the November 2009 SNOPR in the use (cycles per day) of the substituted the baseline unit with a or the inputs to the analysis. Chapter 8 equipment. The variability in energy more efficient design. of the TSD contains detailed discussion and water pricing was characterized by Table IV.4 summarizes the of the methodology utilized for the LCC regional differences in energy and water approaches and data DOE used to derive and PBP analyses as well as the inputs prices. DOE calculated the LCC the inputs to the LCC and PBP developed for the analyses. calculations for the November 2009

TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Changes for Inputs November 2009 SNOPR the final rule

Affecting Installed Costs

Equipment Price ...... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by manufacturer, distributor markups, and No change. sales tax. Installation Cost ...... Baseline cost updated with RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008 ...... No change

Affecting Operating Costs

Annual Energy and Water Use ...... Per-cycle energy and water use based on MEF and WF levels. Disaggregated into No change. per-cycle machine, dryer, and water heating energy using data from DOE’s 2000 TSD for residential clothes washers. Annual energy and water use determined from the annual usage (number of use cycles). Usage based on several studies including research sponsored by MLA19 and the Coin Laundry Association20 (CLA). Different use cycles determined for multi-family and laundromat equipment applications. Energy and Water/Wastewater Prices ...... Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2007 Form 861 data ...... No change. Natural Gas: Updated using EIA’s 2007 Natural Gas Monthly. Water/Wastewater: Updated using RFC/AWWA’s 2006 Water and Wastewater Sur- vey. Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 regions; regional water/waste- water price determined for four regions. Energy and Water/Wastewater Prices Energy: Reference Case forecast updated with EIA’s AEO 2009 April Release. No change. Trends. High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts updated with EIA’s AEO 2009 March Re- lease. Water/Wastewater: Linear extrapolation of 1970–2008 historical trends in national water price index. For the four years after 2008, fixed the annual price to the value in 2008 to prevent a dip in the forecasted prices. Repair and Maintenance Costs ...... Estimated annualized repair costs for each efficiency level based on half the equip- No change. ment lifetime divided by the equipment lifetime.

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings

Equipment Lifetime ...... Based on data from various sources including the CLA. Different lifetimes estab- No change. lished for multi-family and laundromat equipment applications. Variability and un- certainty characterized with Weibull probability distributions. Discount Rates ...... Approach based on cost of capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that pur- No change. chase CCWs. Primary data source is Damodaran Online.21

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs

Effective Date of New Standard ...... 2013 ...... No change. Base-Case Efficiency Distributions ...... Analyzed as two equipment classes: top-loading and front-loading. Distributions for No change. both classes based on the number of available models at the efficiency levels. Top-Loading: 64.8% at 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF; 33.8% at 1.42 MEF/9.5 WF; 1.4% at 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF. Front-Loading: 3.5% at 1.72 MEF/8.0 WF; 0.0% at 1.80 MEF/7.5 WF; 73.7% at 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF; 22.8% at 2.20 MEF/5.1 WF; 0.0% at 2.35 MEF/4.4 WF. 19 Please see the following Web site for further information: http://www.mla-online.com/. 20 Please see the following Web site for further information: http://www.coinlaundry.org/. 21 Please see the following Web site for further information: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/.

1. Equipment Prices multiplied the manufacturing costs developed (along with sales taxes). DOE developed from the engineering analysis used the same supply chain markups for To calculate the equipment prices by the supply chain markups it today’s final rule that were developed faced by CCW purchasers, DOE

18 Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/cbecs/.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

for the November 2009 SNOPR. See calculating a regional price by weighting provided by the Bureau of Labor chapter 7 of the TSD for additional each State in a region by its population. Statistics (BLS). For the October 2008 information. To calculate the final To estimate the trends in electricity NOPR, DOE extrapolated a future trend installed prices, DOE added installation and natural gas prices for the November based on the linear growth from 1970 to cost to the equipment prices. 2009 SNOPR and today’s final rule, DOE 2007. For the SNOPR, DOE continued to used the price forecasts in the AEO 2009 2. Installation Cost use the BLS historical data, which now April Release.25 To arrive at prices in provides data for the year 2008, and Installation costs include labor, future years, DOE multiplied the extrapolated the future trend based on overhead, and any miscellaneous average prices described above by the the linear growth from 1970 to 2008. But materials and parts. For the November forecast of annual average price rather than use the extrapolated trend to 2009 SNOPR and today’s final rule, DOE changes. Because the AEO forecasts forecast the prices for the four years used data from the RS Means prices only to 2030, DOE followed past after 2008, DOE pinned the annual price Mechanical Cost Data, 2008 on labor guidelines provided to the Federal to the value in 2008. Otherwise, requirements to estimate installation Energy Management Program by EIA forecasted prices for this 4-year time costs for CCWs.22 DOE estimates that and used the average rate of change period would have been up to 8 percent installation costs do not increase with during 2020–2030 to estimate the price lower than the price in 2008. Estimating equipment efficiency. trends beyond 2030. The spreadsheet tools used to conduct prices in this manner is appropriate 3. Annual Energy Consumption the LCC and PBP analysis allow users to because it is consistent with the DOE determined the annual energy select either the AEO’s high-growth case historical trend that demonstrates that and water consumption of CCWs by or low-growth case price forecasts to prices do not decrease over time. multiplying the per-cycle energy and estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and Beyond the 4-year time period, DOE water use by the estimated number of PBP to different energy price forecasts. used the extrapolated trend to forecast cycles per year. In the November 2009 The AEO 2009 April Release provides prices out to the year 2043. DOE SNOPR, DOE concluded that the use of only forecasts for the Reference Case. continued to use the above approach for the existing RCW test procedure Therefore, for the November 2009 today’s final rule. provides a representative basis for rating SNOPR and today’s final rule, DOE used 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs and estimating the per-cycle energy use the AEO 2009 March Release high- of CCWs. For today’s final rule, DOE growth case or low-growth forecasts to Repair costs are associated with maintained the same approach. estimate high-growth and low-growth repairing or replacing components that 4. Energy and Water Prices price trends. have failed in the appliance, whereas a. Energy Prices b. Water and Wastewater Prices maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the DOE obtained commercial water and DOE derived average electricity and equipment. DOE was unable to gather natural gas prices for 13 geographic wastewater price data from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted any empirical data specific to CCWs to areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census estimate repair and maintenance cost. divisions, with four large States (New by Raftelis Financial Consultants (RFC) and the American Water Works For the October 2008 NOPR and the York, Florida, Texas, and California) November 2009 SNOPR, DOE included treated separately. Association (AWWA). For the For the November 2009 SNOPR and November 2009 SNOPR and today’s increased repair costs based on an today’s final rule, DOE estimated final rule, DOE used the 2006 Water and algorithm developed by DOE for central commercial electricity prices for each of Wastewater Rate Survey.26 The survey air conditioners and heat pumps and the 13 geographic areas based on 2007 covers approximately 300 water utilities which was also used for residential 27 data from EIA Form 861, Annual and 200 wastewater utilities, with each furnaces and boilers. This algorithm Electric Power Industry Report.23 DOE industry analyzed separately. DOE calculates annualized repair costs by calculated an average commercial calculated values at the Census region dividing half of the equipment retail electricity price by first estimating an level (Northeast, South, Midwest, and price over the equipment lifetime. In the average commercial price for each West). Edison Electric Institute (EEI) absence of better data, DOE retained its utility, and then calculated a regional questioned why water and wastewater approach from the November 2009 average price by weighting each utility prices were not developed at the Census SNOPR for today’s final rule. division level. (EEI, Public Meeting with consumers in a region by the 6. Equipment Lifetime number of commercial consumers Transcript, No. 40.5, p. 103 and p. 178) served in that region. The samples that DOE obtained of 200– For the November 2009 SNOPR and For the November 2009 SNOPR and 300 utilities are not large enough to today’s final rule, DOE used a variety of today’s final rule, DOE estimated calculate regional prices for all U.S. sources to establish low, average, and average commercial natural gas prices in Census divisions and large States. high estimates for equipment lifetime. each of the 13 geographic areas based on Hence, DOE was only able to capture The average CCW lifetime was 11.3 2007 data from the EIA publication the variability of water and wastewater years for multi-family applications, and Natural Gas Monthly. 24 DOE calculated prices at the Census region level. 7.1 years in laundromat applications. an average natural gas price for each To estimate the future trend for water DOE characterized CCW lifetimes with area by first calculating the average and wastewater prices, DOE used data Weibull probability distributions. prices for each State, and then on the historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) 27 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 22 Available online at: http://www.rsmeans.com/ Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for bookstore/. 25 All AEO publications are available online at: Consumer Products: Residential Central Air 23 Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. Conditioners and Heat Pumps (May 2002) chapter cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 26 Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., 2006 RFC/ 5. This document is available at: http:// 24 Available online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 2006, www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/ (2006). This document is available at: http:// appliance_standards/residential/ natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html. www.raftelis.com/ratessurvey.html. ac_central_1000_r.html.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1141

7. Discount Rates 8. Effective Date of the Amended accurately estimate the percentage of Standards consumers that would be affected by a To establish discount rates for CCWs particular standard level, DOE estimates for the November 2009 SNOPR and The compliance date is the future date when parties subject to the requirements the distribution of equipment today’s final rule, DOE estimated the of a new standard must begin efficiencies that consumers are expected cost of capital of publicly traded firms compliance. For the November 2009 to purchase under the base case (i.e., the in the sectors that purchase CCWs as the SNOPR, DOE expected that the final case without new energy efficiency weighted average of the cost of equity rule will be published by January 1, standards). DOE refers to this financing and the cost of debt financing. 2010, as required by EPACT 2005, with distribution of equipment energy DOE identified the following sectors compliance with new standards efficiencies as a base-case efficiency purchasing CCWs: (1) Educational required by January 1, 2013. For today’s distribution. As discussed previously in services; (2) hotels; (3) real estate final rule, DOE used the same date for investment trusts; and (4) personal section IV.A, DOE decided to analyze compliance. DOE calculated the LCC for CCWs with two equipment classes—top- services. DOE estimated the weighted- CCW consumers as if they would average cost of capital (WACC) using the loading CCWs and front-loading CCWs. purchase new equipment in the year For the November 2009 SNOPR and respective shares of equity and debt after the standard takes effect. financing for each sector that purchases today’s final rule, DOE used the number CCWs. It calculated the real WACC by 9. Equipment Energy Efficiency in the of available models within each adjusting the cost of capital by the Base Case equipment class to establish the base- expected rate of inflation. To obtain an For the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE case efficiency distributions. Table IV.5 average discount rate value, DOE used analyzes higher efficiency levels relative presents the market shares of the additional data on the number of CCWs to a baseline efficiency level. However, efficiency levels in the base case for in use in various sectors. DOE estimated some consumers may already purchase CCWs. See chapter 8 of the TSD for the average discount rate for companies equipment with efficiencies greater than further details on the development of that purchase CCWs at 5.7 percent. the baseline equipment levels. Thus, to CCW base-case market shares.

TABLE IV.5—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES

Top-loading Front-loading Market share Market share Standard level MEF WF % Standard level MEF WF %

Baseline ...... 1.26 9.50 64.8 Baseline...... 1.72 8.00 3.5 1 ...... 1.42 9.50 33.8 1...... 1.80 7.50 0.0 2 ...... 1.60 8.50 1.4 2...... 2.00 5.50 73.7 3 ...... 2.20 5.10 22.8 4 ...... 2.34 4.40 0.0

10. Split Incentive Between CCW more-efficient equipment. The Joint larger models with more features that Consumers and Users Comment stated that contracts between would result in higher energy use.28 route operators and multi-housing DOE did not receive any comments from Under a split incentive situation, the property owners are subject to revision interested parties on the issue of the party purchasing more efficient and and renewal, and that the division of rebound effect for CCWs. Based on the presumably more expensive equipment coin-box revenue may be renegotiated to limited research showing no rebound (referred to as ‘‘consumers’’ in this allow for the savings achieved by more- effect for RCWs, DOE did not include a notice) may not realize the operating efficient CCWs to be equitably shared rebound effect in its analysis of CCW cost savings from that equipment, standards. because another party may pay the between the purchasers/owners of the utility bill. Such a situation exists in machines (route operators) and the 12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis segments of the CCW market. In parties responsible for paying electric, comments on the October 2008 NOPR, gas, water, and sewer bills (property The PBP is the amount of time Whirlpool and Alliance stated that those owners). (Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at p. (expressed in years) it takes the who own CCWs (usually route 3) DOE agrees with the above comment, consumer to recover the additional operators) often do not incur the and continues to conclude that CCW installed cost of more efficient operating costs as do, generally, consumers would be able to realize a equipment through operating cost laundromats and owners of multi-family significant share of the operating cost savings, compared to baseline dwellings. 73 FR 62067 (Oct. 17, 2008). savings from more-efficient equipment. equipment. The simple PBP does not account for changes in operating Recognizing this, DOE evaluated the 11. Rebound Effect ability of CCW consumers to pass on the expense over time or the time value of higher purchase costs of more expensive The rebound effect occurs when a money. The inputs to the PBP CCWs and concluded that few route piece of equipment, made more efficient calculation are the total installed cost of operators would allow themselves to be and used more intensively, does not the equipment to the consumer for each held to a lease agreement that would yield the expected energy savings from efficiency level and the annual (first- prevent them from recovering the cost of the efficiency improvement. In the case more efficient CCW equipment. That is, of more efficient clothes washers, 28 L.A. Greening, D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio. ‘‘Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound DOE believes that these CCW consumers limited research indicates that there is effect—a survey.’’ Energy Policy 28 (2000) 389–401. would be able to realize a significant no rebound effect for RCWs, although Available for purchase at http://www.elsevier.com/ share of the operating cost savings from the consumer may choose to purchase locate/enpol.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

year) operating expenditures for each as a result of the standard,’’ as calculated DOE applied the NIA spreadsheet to efficiency level. For the November 2009 under the test procedure in place for perform calculations of energy savings SNOPR and today’s final rule, the PBP that standard. For each TSL, DOE and NPV, using the annual energy calculation uses the same inputs as the determined the value of the first year’s consumption and total installed cost LCC analysis, except that energy price energy savings by calculating the data from the LCC analysis. DOE trends and discount rates are not quantity of those savings in accordance forecasted the energy savings, energy needed. with DOE’s test procedure, and cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV for each equipment class from 2013 to 13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback multiplying that amount by the average 2043. The forecasts provide annual and Period energy price forecast for the year in which a new standard would be first cumulative values for all four As noted above, EPCA, as amended effective—in this case, 2013. parameters. In addition, DOE (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and incorporated into its NIA spreadsheet 6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable E. National Impact Analysis—National the capability to analyze sensitivity of presumption that a standard is Energy Savings and Net Present Value the results to forecasted energy prices economically justified if the Secretary Analysis and equipment efficiency trends. Table finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 1. General IV.6 summarizes the approach and data consumer of purchasing a product DOE used to derive the inputs to the complying with an energy conservation DOE’s NIA assesses the national NES and NPV analyses for the standard level will be less than three energy savings, as well as the national November 2009 SNOPR. DOE made no times the value of the energy (and as NPV of total consumer costs and changes to the analyses for today’s final applicable, water) savings during the savings, expected to result from new rule. (See chapter 11 of the final rule first year that the consumer will receive standards at specific efficiency levels. TSD for further details.)

TABLE IV.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV ANALYSES

Changes for the Inputs 2009 SNOPR Description final rule

Shipments ...... Annual shipments from Shipments Model ...... No change. Effective Date of Standard ...... 2013 ...... No change. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ... Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) determined in the year 2005. SWEF held con- No change. stant over forecast period. Standards-Case Forecasted Effi- Analyzed as two equipment classes. For each equipment class, roll-up scenario used No change. ciencies. for determining SWEF in the year that standards become effective for each stand- ards case. SWEF held constant over forecast period. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of SWEF ...... No change. Total Installed Cost per Unit ...... Annual weighted-average values as a function of SWEF ...... No change. Energy and Water Cost per Unit ...... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per No change. unit and energy (and water) prices. Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost Incorporated changes in repair costs as a function of efficiency ...... No change. per Unit. Escalation of Energy and Water/ Energy Prices: Updated to AEO 2009 April Release forecasts for the Reference Wastewater Prices. Case. AEO 2009 April Release does not provide High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts; used AEO 2009 March Release High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts to estimate high- and low-growth price trends. Water/Wastewater Prices: Linear extrapolation of 1970–2008 historical trends in na- No change. tional water price index. For the four years following 2013, fixed the annual price to the value in 2008 to prevent a dip in the forecasted prices. Energy Site-to-Source Conversion ..... Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/EIA’s NEMS program (a time-se- No change. ries conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses). Effect of Standards on Energy Prices Determined but found not to be significant ...... No change. Discount Rate ...... 3% and 7% real ...... No change. Present Year ...... Future expenses discounted to year 2009 ...... No change.

2. Shipments the Shipments Model to historical The general approach for forecasting shipments data. For purposes of CCW shipments for today’s final rule The shipments portion of the NIA estimating the impacts of prospective remains unchanged from the November Spreadsheet is a Shipments Model that standards on equipment shipments (i.e., 2009 SNOPR. That is, all CCW uses historical data as a basis for forecasting standards-case shipments) shipments (for both equipment classes) projecting future shipments of the DOE considered the combined effects of were estimated for the new equipment that are the subject of this changes in purchase price, annual construction, replacement, and non- rulemaking. In projecting CCW operating cost, and household income replacement markets. DOE then shipments, DOE accounted for three on the magnitude of shipments. allocated shipments to each of the two market segments: (1) New construction; Table IV.7 summarizes the approach equipment classes based on the market (2) existing buildings (i.e., replacing and data DOE used to derive the inputs share of each class. For the November failed equipment); and (3) retired units to the shipments analysis for the 2009 SNOPR, DOE estimated that top- not replaced. DOE used the non- November 2009 SNOPR, and the loading washers comprise 70 percent of replacement market segment to calibrate changes it made for today’s final rule. the market while front-loading washers

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1143

comprise 30 percent. DOE estimated would remain unchanged over the time that the equipment class market shares period 2005–2043.

TABLE IV.7—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Changes for the Inputs 2009 SNOPR description final rule

Number of Equipment Two: top-loading washers and front-loading washers. Shipments forecasts established for all No change. Classes. CCWs and then disaggregated into the two equipment classes based on the market share of top- and front-loading washers. Updated market share data based on SEC 10K report of the LVM and tax credits claimed by the LVM for producing high-efficiency CCWs. Mar- ket share determined to be 70% top-loading and 30% front-loading. Equipment class mar- ket shares held constant over forecast period. New Construction Ship- Determined by multiplying multi-housing forecasts by forecasted saturation of CCWs for new No change. ments. multi-housing. Multi-housing forecasts with AEO 2009 April Release forecasts for the Ref- erence Case. Verified frozen saturations with data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Amer- ican Housing Survey (AHS) for 1997–2005. Replacements ...... Determined by tracking total equipment stock by vintage and establishing the failure of the No change. stock using retirement functions from the LCC and PBP analysis. Retirement functions re- vised to be based on Weibull lifetime distributions. Retired Units not Re- Used to calibrate Shipments Model to historical shipments data. Froze the percentage of No change. placed (i.e., non-re- non-replacements at 15 percent for the period 2007ƒ2043 to account for the increased placements). saturation rate of in-unit washers in the multi-family stock between 1997 and 2005 time- frame shown by the AHS. Historical Shipments ..... Data sources include AHAM data submittal, Appliance Magazine, and U.S. Bureau of Eco- Conducted a sensitivity nomic Analysis’ quantity index data for commercial laundry. Relative market shares of the analysis based on two equipment applications, common-area laundry facilities in multi-family housing and relative market laundromats, estimated to be over time at 85 and 15 percent, respectively. shares of 66 percent for multi-family hous- ing and a 34-percent share for laun- dromats. Purchase Price, Oper- Developed the ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity which accounts for the purchase price and the No change. ating Cost, and present value of operating cost savings divided by household income. Used purchase Household Income price and efficiency data specific to residential refrigerators, clothes washers, and dish- Impacts due to effi- washers between 1980 and 2002 to determine a ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity of demand, of ciency standards. ¥0.34. Fuel Switching ...... Not applicable ...... No change.

DOE based its Shipments Model for family settings, the commenters believe it seems evident that a large fraction of CCWs on the following three a split of roughly 45 percent for multi- the sales to laundromats and multi- assumptions: (1) All equipment family venues and 55 percent for family housing are accounted for by shipments for new construction are laundromats is reasonable, and should equipment other than CCWs. This driven by the new multi-family housing be evaluated by DOE for the final rule. unaccounted-for equipment would market, (2) the relative market shares of (Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at p. 3) include clothes dryers in addition to the two equipment applications, Whirlpool commented that it believes washer-extractors and tumblers, which common-area laundry facilities in multi- the industry mix is not nearly as heavily are large-capacity, higher-performance family housing and laundromats, are weighted toward the multi-family washing machines, and matching large- constant over time at 85 and 15 percent, channel as DOE assumed. (Whirlpool, capacity dryers, respectively. respectively, and (3) the U.S. Census No. 67.11 at p. 4). In contrast, Alliance Laundromats account for much more of Bureau’s quantity index data can be stated that it believes that the split of the larger equipment than multi-family used to validate the shipments trend the distribution channels of laundromat housing, and this type of equipment is observed in the historical data. versus multi-family housing common- more expensive than CCWs. Therefore, The Joint Comment stated that DOE’s area laundry rooms of 15 percent and 85 the laundromat share of sales to the assumed 85 percent to 15 percent split percent respectively is generally North American commercial laundry between sales for multi-family representative of the industry. (Alliance, industry by Alliance is as high as it is applications and sales for laundromat No. 67.8 at p. 2) primarily due to sales of larger applications is not based on robust or In response, DOE believes that the equipment. Thus, the revenue share current data, and understates the interpretation by the Joint Comment of between the multi-family and energy, water, and dollar savings that information from Alliance’s Form 10–K laundromat markets is not a good would be achieved by all of the standard for 2008 understates the importance of indicator of the share of laundromats in levels under consideration. It cited equipment other than CCWs. The total sales of CCWs. information from Alliance’s Form 10–K 2008 revenues from Alliance’s sales to for 2008, which, the Joint Comment the commercial laundry industry are The CCW unit shipment shares of 85 asserted, suggested that the ratio of $338 million, and sales to laundromats percent for multi-family housing and 15 multi-family to laundromat shipments is and multi-family housing amount to percent for laundromats used in the about 40 percent to 60 percent. It noted $240 million. However, based on data SNOPR were based upon the input of that because some laundromats gathered for its MIA, DOE estimated that industry experts consulted in a purchase a limited number of larger the total sales of CCWs by Alliance comprehensive study conducted by the capacity washers not found in multi- amount to only $73 million. Therefore, Consortium for Energy Efficiency in

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

1998.29 Although the report was period. The effect of maintaining non- other. Because the price impacts for conducted over 10 years ago, it was the replacements at 18 percent results in more efficient top-loaders are higher most reliable data source for developing forecasted CCW shipments staying than those for more efficient front- a market split for CCW shipments that relatively flat during the forecast period. loaders, DOE estimated that sales would was available. DOE notes that Alliance decrease more for top-loading CCWs c. Impacts of Standards on Shipments believes that this split is generally than for front-loaders. To estimate the combined effects on representative of the industry. However, DOE did not explicitly model CCW shipments from increases in because the assumed shares of potential switching between top-loaders laundromats and multi-family housing equipment purchase price and decreases in equipment operating costs due to and front-loaders due to lack of in shipments have a significant effect on information on the appropriate cross- the NIA results, DOE conducted a amended efficiency standards, DOE relied on a literature review and a price elasticity. Whirlpool commented sensitivity analysis in which it used the that there are considerable between- data in Alliance’s 2008 10K report, statistical analysis that it has conducted on a limited set of appliance price, class switching costs which would act coupled with a number of assumptions against class switching by purchasers of and input from Whirlpool, to estimate efficiency, and shipments data. DOE used purchase price and efficiency data commercial clothes washers. the shares of laundromats and multi- (Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. 2) DOE notes family housing in shipments of CCWs in specific to residential refrigerators, the comment by Whirlpool but it 2008. The analysis, which is described clothes washers, and dishwashers believes that there is uncertainty in appendix 11C of the final rule TSD, between 1980 and 2002 to conduct regarding the extent of switching that yields an estimate of a 66 percent share regression analyses. DOE’s analysis could result from changes in the price for multi-family housing and a 34 suggests that the ‘‘relative’’ short-run differential between top-loaders and percent share for laundromats. Using price elasticity of demand, averaged front-loaders. these shares increases national energy over the three appliances, is ¥0.34. savings by approximately 9 percent Because DOE’s forecast of shipments 3. Other Inputs and impacts due to standards spans over (compared to the savings when using a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies the 15 percent and 85 percent shares), 30 years, DOE also considered how the and increases the NPV of consumer relative price elasticity is affected once A key input to the calculations of NES benefit by approximately 12 percent a new standard takes effect. After the and NPV are the energy efficiencies that under TSLs 3, 4, and 5. purchase price change, price elasticity DOE forecasts for the base case (without becomes more inelastic over the years a. New Construction Shipments new standards). The forecasted until it reaches a terminal value. DOE efficiencies represent the annual To determine new construction incorporated a change in relative price shipment-weighted energy efficiency shipments, DOE used a forecast of new elasticity change that resulted in a (SWEF) of the equipment under housing coupled with equipment terminal value of approximately one- consideration over the forecast period market saturation data for new housing. third of the short-run elasticity. In other (i.e., from the estimated effective date of For new housing completions and words, DOE determined that consumer a new standard to 30 years after that mobile home placements, DOE adopted purchase decisions, in time, become less date). the projections from EIA’s AEO 2009 sensitive to the initial change in the April Release Reference Case through equipment’s relative price. For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE 2030 for the November 2009 SNOPR NPCC suggested that it might be first determined the distribution of and today’s final rule. For CCWs, DOE useful for DOE to compare the relative equipment efficiencies currently in the relied on new construction market price elasticity approach used for CCWs marketplace to develop a SWEF for each saturation data from the above- with the shipments model that was used equipment class for 2005. Using the mentioned CEE report. in the previous rulemaking for RCWs. SWEF as a starting point, DOE (NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. developed base-case efficiencies based b. Replacements and Non-Replacements 67.4 at pp. 97–98) The approach that on estimates of future efficiency DOE estimated replacements using was used in the previous rulemaking for increase. From 2005 to 2013 (2013 being equipment retirement functions RCWs modeled consumer purchase the estimated effective date of a new developed from equipment lifetimes. decisions in terms of probabilities that standard), DOE estimated that there For the November 2009 SNOPR and typically depend on the type of stock, would be no change in the SWEF (i.e., today’s final rule, DOE used retirement the age of the clothes washer, the no change in the distribution of functions based on Weibull incremental cost of the decision, and equipment efficiencies). Because there distributions. DOE determined that the market conditions. The dependence of are no historical data to indicate how growth of in-unit washer saturations in decision probabilities on price and equipment efficiencies have changed the multi-family stock over the last 10 market conditions was given by a over time, DOE estimated that years was likely caused by conversions standard econometric logic equation. In forecasted efficiencies would remain at of rental property to condominiums, the present rulemaking for CCWs, DOE the 2013 level until the end of the resulting in the gradual phase-out or did not use such an approach, in part forecast period. DOE recognizes the non-replacement of failed CCWs in because it requires detailed information possibility that equipment efficiencies common-area laundry facilities. As a on consumer decision making, which is may change over time (e.g., due to result, DOE used the average percent of not available in the case of CCWs. voluntary efficiency programs such as non-replacements over the period For its November 2009 SNOPR as well ENERGY STAR). But without historical between 1999 and 2005 (18 percent) and as today’s final rule, DOE estimated that information, DOE had no basis for maintained it over the entire forecast price increases due to standards would estimating how much the equipment lead to reductions in unit shipments for efficiencies may change. For today’s 29 Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Commercial both top-loading and front-loading final rule, DOE maintained its estimate Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (1998). This CCWs. DOE analyzed the impacts of that the SWEF would remain constant document is available at: http://www.cee1.org/com/ increased purchase prices for each from 2005 through the end of the cwsh/cwsh-main.php3. equipment class independently of the forecast period.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1145

b. Standards-Case Forecasted under the standards cases are lower efficiency standards and to comment on Efficiencies than under the base case. To avoid the whether site (point-of-use) or source For its determination of each of the inclusion of energy savings from (full-fuel-cycle) measures of energy cases with alternative standard levels reduced shipments, DOE used the efficiency better support rulemaking to (‘‘standards cases’’), DOE used a ‘‘roll- standards-case shipments projection achieve energy conservation goals. The up’’ scenario in the November 2009 and the standards-case stock to calculate NRC committee defined site (point-of- SNOPR to establish the SWEF for 2013. the annual energy consumption in the use) energy consumption as reflecting In a roll-up scenario, equipment base case. For CCWs, any drop in the use of electricity, natural gas, efficiencies in the base case which do shipments caused by standards is propane, and/or fuel oil by an appliance estimated to result in the purchase of not meet the standard level under at the site where the appliance is used machines. As a result, the consideration are projected to roll-up to operated, based on specified test standards-case forecast explicitly meet the new standard level. Further, all procedures. Full-fuel-cycle energy accounted for the energy and water equipment efficiencies in the base case consumption was defined as including, consumption of new standard- that are above the standard level under in addition to site energy use, the energy compliant CCWs and also used consideration are not affected by the consumed in the extraction, processing, machines coming into the market due to standard. The same scenario is used for and transport of primary fuels such as the drop in new equipment shipments. coal, oil, and natural gas; energy losses the forecasted standards-case DOE retained the use of the base-case efficiencies as for the base-case in thermal combustion in power- shipments to determine the annual generation plants; and energy losses in efficiencies, namely, that forecasted energy consumption in the base case efficiencies remained at the 2013 transmission and distribution to homes and the approach used in the November and commercial buildings. efficiency level until the end of the 2009 SNOPR for today’s final rule. forecast period, as DOE has no data to In evaluating the merits of using reasonably estimate how such efficiency d. Site-to-Source Conversion point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle levels might change over the next 30 To estimate the national energy measures, the NRC committee noted years. By maintaining the same rate of savings expected from appliance that DOE uses what the committee increase for forecasted efficiencies in standards, DOE uses a multiplicative referred to as ‘‘extended site’’ energy the standards case as in the base case factor to convert site energy consumption to assess the impact of (i.e., no change), DOE retained a consumption (energy use at the location energy use on the economy, energy constant efficiency difference between where the appliance is operated) into security, and environmental quality. the two cases over the forecast period. primary or source energy consumption The extended site measure of energy Although the no-change trends may not (the energy required to deliver the site consumption includes the generation, reflect what would happen to base-case energy). For the November 2009 SNOPR transmission, and distribution but, and standards-case equipment and today’s final rule, DOE used annual unlike the full-fuel-cycle measure, does efficiencies in the future, DOE believes site-to-source conversion factors based not include the energy consumed in that maintaining a constant efficiency on the version of NEMS that extracting, processing, and transporting difference between the base case and corresponds to the AEO 2009 March primary fuels. A majority of members on standards case provides a reasonable Release version. These conversion the NRC committee believe that estimate of the impact that standards factors account for natural gas losses extended site energy consumption have on equipment efficiency. It is more from pipeline leakage and natural gas understates the total energy consumed important to accurately estimate the used for pumping energy and to make an appliance operational at the efficiency difference between the transportation fuel. For electricity, the site. As a result, the NRC committee’s standards case and base case, than to conversion factors vary over time due to primary general recommendation is for accurately estimate the actual projected changes in generation sources DOE to consider moving over time to equipment efficiencies in the standards (i.e., the power plant types projected to use of a full-fuel-cycle measure of and base cases. DOE retained the provide electricity to the country). Since energy consumption for assessment of approach used in the November 2009 the AEO does not provide energy national and environmental impacts, SNOPR for today’s final rule. forecasts that go beyond 2030, DOE used especially levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and to providing more c. Annual Energy Consumption conversion factors that remain constant at the 2030 values throughout the comprehensive information to the The annual energy consumption per remainder of the forecast. public through labels and other means, unit depends directly on equipment In response to a request from the DOE, such as an enhanced Web site. For those efficiency. For the November 2009 Office of Energy Efficiency and appliances that use multiple fuels (e.g., SNOPR and today’s final rule, DOE used Renewable Energy (EERE), the National water heaters), the NRC committee the SWEFs associated with the base case Research Council (NRC) appointed a believes that measuring full-fuel-cycle and each standards case, in combination committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and Full- energy consumption would provide a with the annual energy data, to estimate Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to more complete picture of energy used, the shipment-weighted average annual Energy Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct allowing comparison across many per-unit energy consumption under the a study called for in section 1802 of different appliances as well as an base case and standards cases. The EPACT 2005.30 The fundamental task improved assessment of impacts. The national energy consumption is the before the committee was to evaluate NRC committee also acknowledged the product of the annual energy the methodology used for setting energy complexities inherent in developing a consumption per unit and the number full-fuel-cycle measure of energy use of units of each vintage, which depends 30 The National Academies, Board on Energy and and stated that a majority of the on shipments. Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, committee recommended a gradual As noted above in section IV.D, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE, Office of transition to that expanded measure and EERE from James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on used a relative price elasticity to Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement eventual replacement of the currently estimate standards-case shipments for Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards, May used extended site measure. To improve CCWs. As a result, shipments forecasted 15, 2009. consumers’ understanding, the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1146 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

committee recommended that DOE and analytical tools exist to conduct such an pointing out that it is difficult to select the Federal Trade Commission could evaluation.31 what should be included once one evaluate potential indices of energy use In response, the California Utilities deviates from the aforementioned EPCA and its impacts and could explore stated that DOE should account for definition of ‘‘energy use.’’ In the second various options for label design and energy savings associated with energy instance, DOE was noting that its content using established consumer embedded in water. (California Utilities, analysis does include some aspects of research methods. No. 67.10 at p. 5) For the reason stated the energy embedded in water delivered DOE acknowledges that its site-to- above, DOE did not include the energy to CCWs. DOE agrees that the outcome source conversion factors do not capture required for water treatment and of the life-cycle cost analysis is not the the energy consumed in extracting, delivery in its analysis of energy savings only factor DOE must consider in processing, and transporting primary from amended CCW standards. determining whether a standard level is fuels. DOE also agrees with the NRC EJ commented that two of the economically justified; however, it committee’s conclusion that developing additional rationales provided by DOE believes that in considering the energy site-to-source conversion factors that for not including the energy required for savings likely to result directly from the capture the energy associated with the water treatment and delivery in its imposition of the standard, the extraction, processing, and analysis were not convincing. In appropriate course is to follow the transportation of primary fuels is reference to DOE’s statement that EPCA definition of ‘‘energy use.’’ inherently complex and difficult. As a ‘‘Inclusion of the embedded energy associated with water and wastewater f. Total Installed Costs and Operating result, DOE will evaluate whether Costs moving to a full-fuel-cycle measure will service, would, for completeness, also enhance its ability to set energy- require inclusion of the energy The increase in total annual installed efficiency standards. associated with all other aspects of the cost is equal to the difference in the per- unit total installed cost between the DOE also notes that the NRC installation and operation of the base case and standards case, multiplied committee’s recommendation to use a equipment, e.g. the manufacture, by the shipments forecasted in the full-fuel-cycle measure was especially distribution, and installation of the equipment;’’ EJ stated that DOE has standards case. The annual operating focused on appliances using multiple offered no explanation for why cost savings per unit includes changes fuels. For single-fuel appliances, the consideration of the energy embedded in energy, water, repair, and committee recommended that the in the water used in equipment’s maintenance costs. For the November current practice of basing energy operation would mandate this much 2009 SNOPR and today’s final rule, DOE efficiency requirements on the site wider expansion of the Department’s forecasted energy prices using data from measure of energy consumption should analysis. Regarding DOE’s contention AEO 2009 April Release. For today’s be retained. Although CCWs utilize that its analysis already reflects the cost final rule, DOE maintained the approach heated water from both electric and of the energy embedded in water it used to develop repair and natural gas water heaters and are because the cost of the energy used in maintenance costs for more efficient credited with improved performance by treating and delivering water is a CCWs in the November 2009 SNOPR. reducing the energy used in electric and component of the cost of water for Commenting on valuation of energy gas clothes dryers, the energy efficiency clothes washer consumers, EJ stated that savings, the California Utilities urged metric with which they are regulated, the outcome of the life-cycle cost DOE to assess the energy impacts from the MEF, is expressed in terms of analysis is not the only factor DOE must the proposed standard such that the electrical energy usage (cubic feet per consider in determining whether a analysis captures the value of energy kWh). As a result, for labeling and standard level is economically justified, over time. It noted that California has enforcement purposes, CCWs are a and DOE must consider, to the developed an energy costing analysis for single-fuel appliance. Therefore, maximum extent practicable, ‘‘the total standards, called Time-Dependent although a full-fuel-cycle measure may projected amount of energy * * * Valuation of savings (TDV), which provide a better assessment of national savings likely to result directly from the places a high value on energy savings and environmental impacts, it is not imposition of the standard.’’ 42 U.S.C. that occur during high-cost times of the necessary for providing energy use 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III). (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. day and year. It added that water and comparisons among CCW models. 12) wastewater can also have time- e. Energy Used in Water and Wastewater In response, DOE notes that neither of dependent values, which should be Treatment and Delivery the additional rationales on which EJ accounted for in DOE’s analysis. commented is central to its conclusion (California Utilities, No. 67.10 at p. 6) In In the October 2008 NOPR and the that it does not have the authority to response, DOE acknowledges that the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE did not consider the energy required for water approach suggested by the California include the energy required for water treatment and delivery in the analysis. Utilities has merits, but it believes that treatment and delivery in its analysis. It In the first instance, DOE was simply the amount of effort and time required stated that EPCA defines ‘‘energy use’’ to to develop time-dependent values of be ‘‘the quantity of energy directly 31 An analytical tool equivalent to EIA’s NEMS energy savings (as well as water and consumed by a consumer product at would be needed to properly account for embedded wastewater savings) at a diversity of point of use, determined in accordance energy impacts on a national scale, including the embedded energy due to water and wastewater locations across the nation would it with test procedures under section 6293 savings. This new version of NEMS would need to make it impossible to implement this of [42 U.S.C.].’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) analyze spending and energy use in dozens, if not approach within the context of the hundreds, of economic sectors. This version of Based on the definition of ‘‘energy use,’’ present rulemaking. DOE concluded that it does not have the NEMS also would need to account for shifts in spending in these various sectors to account for the authority to consider embedded energy marginal embedded energy differences among these g. Discount Rates (i.e., the energy required for water sectors. 72 FR 64432, 64498–99 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE multiplies monetary values in treatment and delivery) in the analysis. DOE does not have access to such a tool or other future years by the discount factor to It added that, even if DOE had the means to accurately estimate the source energy savings impacts of decreased water or wastewater determine the present value. DOE authority, it does not believe adequate consumption and expenditures. estimated national impacts using both a

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1147

3-percent and a 7-percent real discount standards will not provide additional For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE rate, in accordance with guidance economic benefits resulting from lower updated the MIA results based on provided by the Office of Management energy prices. For today’s final rule, several changes to other analyses that and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies DOE has made no change to its impact the MIA. The total shipments on the development of regulatory conclusions about the effects of CCW and efficiency distributions were analysis (OMB Circular A–4 (Sept.17, standards on energy prices. updated using the new estimates 2003), section E, ‘‘Identifying and outlined in the SNOPR NIA. The F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis Measuring Benefits and Costs’’).32 SNOPR MIA also used the same analysis The California Utilities stated that For the November 2009 SNOPR and period as in the NIA (2013–2043) and DOE should give primary weight to today’s final rule, DOE analyzed the updated the base year to 2009. DOE also calculations based on the 3-percent potential effects of CCW standards on updated the manufacturer production discount rate for its national impact two subgroups: (1) Consumers not costs and the capital and equipment analysis. (California Utilities, No. 67.10 served by municipal water and sewer conversion costs to 2008$ using the at p. 6) In response, DOE notes that providers, and (2) small businesses. For producer price index for commercial OMB Circular A–4 references an earlier consumers not served by water and laundry equipment manufacturing Circular A–94, which states that a real sewer, DOE analyzed the potential (NAICS 333312). Additionally, DOE discount rate of 7 percent should be impacts of standards by conducting the updated the GRIM to allow the used as a base case for regulatory analysis with well and septic system inclusion of Federal production tax analysis. The 7-percent rate is an prices, rather than water and wastewater credits. 74 FR 57738, 57762 (Nov. 9, estimate of the average before-tax rate of prices based on RFC/AWWA data. For 2009). return to private capital in the U.S. small businesses, DOE analyzed the For today’s final rule, DOE continued economy. It approximates the potential impacts of standards by to use the GRIM and revised the MIA opportunity cost of capital, and, conducting the analysis with different results from the November 2009 according to Circular A–94, it is the discount rates, because small businesses SNOPR. For details of the MIA, see appropriate discount rate whenever the do not have the same access to capital chapter 13 of the TSD. The following main effect of a regulation is to displace as larger businesses. DOE estimated that sections describe the revisions made to or alter the use of capital in the private for businesses purchasing CCWs, the the MIA for today’s final rule. sector. OMB later found that the average average discount rate for small For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE rate of return to capital remains near the companies is 3.5 percent higher than the used publicly available information, 7-percent rate estimated in 1992. industry average. Due to the higher costs recent SEC filings, and the information Circular A–4 also states that when of conducting business, as evidenced by published in chapter 13 and appendix regulation primarily and directly affects their higher discount rates, the benefits 13A of the October 2008 NOPR to private consumption, a lower discount of CCW standards for small businesses estimate the likely Federal production rate is appropriate: ‘‘The alternative will be lower than for the general tax credits for which the CCW industry most often used is sometimes called the population of CCW owners. would be eligible. 74 FR 57738, 57764 social rate of time preference * * * the More details on the consumer (Nov. 9, 2009). For today’s final rule, rate at which ‘‘society’’ discounts future subgroup analysis can be found in DOE used tax and earnings information consumption flows to their present chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. published in SEC filings for the LVM value.’’ It suggests that the real rate of G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis and the same methodology described in return on long-term government debt appendix 13C to revise the estimated DOE performed an MIA to estimate may provide a fair approximation of the Federal production tax credits for 2009 the financial impact of amended energy social rate of time preference, and states and 2010. For details on the Federal conservation standards on CCW that over the last 30 years, this rate has production tax credits, see appendix manufacturers, and to calculate the averaged around 3 percent in real terms 13C of the TSD. impact of such standards on domestic on a pre-tax basis. Circular A–4 For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE manufacturing employment and concludes that ‘‘for regulatory analysis, received a number of comments from capacity. The MIA has both quantitative [agencies] should provide estimates of interested parties in response to the and qualitative aspects. The quantitative net benefits using both 3 percent and 7 distribution and usage patterns for part of the MIA primarily relies on the percent.’’ Consistent with OMB’s commercial laundry, which affect the GRIM—an industry-cash-flow model guidance, DOE did not give primary shipment analysis. In response, DOE customized for this rulemaking. The weight to results derived using a 3- modeled a sensitivity analysis to GRIM inputs are data characterizing the percent discount rate. account for the slightly different industry cost structure, shipments, and shipment results. Shipments affect MIA h. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices revenues. The key output is the INPV. results because they directly influence For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) the value of the INPV estimated in the conducted an analysis of the impact of will produce different results. The GRIM. For today’s final rule, the GRIM reduced energy demand associated with qualitative part of the MIA addresses was revised to include an alternative possible standards on CCWs on prices of factors such as equipment shipment scenario based on the natural gas and electricity. The analysis characteristics, characteristics of sensitivity analysis. See appendix 11C found that gas and electric demand particular firms, and market and for details on the sensitivity analysis, reductions resulting from max-tech equipment trends, and it also includes including the INPV results from the standards for CCWs would have no an assessment of the impacts of analysis. detectable change on the U.S. average standards on subgroups of DOE received a number of comments wellhead natural gas price or the manufacturers. DOE outlined its from interested parties in response to average user price of electricity. methodology for the MIA in the October the MIA analysis presented in the Therefore, DOE concluded that CCW 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62075–81 November 2009 SNOPR. At the SNOPR (Oct. 17, 2008). The complete MIA for public meeting and in its written 32 OMB circulars are available online at: http:// the October 2008 NOPR is presented in comments, Alliance stated that DOE’s www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/. chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. belief that all manufacturers can achieve

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1148 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

a top-loading standard greater than or performance issues to abandon such that it expects tighter credit terms. equal to 1.60 MEF and a water factor models and replace them with Alliance estimates that an $18.4 million less than or equal to 8.5 is flawed. traditional top-loading CCWs. investment would be required to modify (Alliance, No. 66.4 at p. 5 33; Alliance, Additionally, most of the Multiple its facilities to manufacture top-loading Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at Route Operators stated that they would CCWs at the max-tech efficiency level, pp. 24, 57) SCG also inquired if be reluctant to utilize high efficiency double the total annual capital manufacturers can comply with the top-loading CCWs based on reports of expenditures for the entire company. revised standard proposed in the consumer dissatisfaction with such Alliance stated that, even if the funds November 2009 SNOPR. (SCG, Public units. Lastly, the Multiple Route were available for a dramatic redesign of Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 57) Operators strongly oppose the top- its top-loading CCWs, it would not be Alliance stated that while it currently loading standard level proposed in the approved for funding by its investors markets a top-loading CCW that is close October 2008 NOPR (i.e., 1.76 MEF/8.3 regardless of the method used to to meeting the proposed top-loading WF) (Multiple Route Operators, No. 67.8 calculate the financial payback because standard in the November 2009 SNOPR, at pp. 1–3). the equipment does not meet customers’ that model was developed to allow DOE proposed a 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF minimum requirements. (Alliance, No. some customers to earn an ENERGY standard for top-loading CCWs in the 66.4 at p. 5; Alliance, Public Meeting STAR rating and a CEE rebate. Alliance November 2009 SNOPR in response to Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 24–25) stated that this model is not accepted by these and other concerns voiced by Alliance also stated that it would need all customers, as some reject the water- interested parties. For the November to redesign the inner and outer tubs to saving features required to achieve its 2009 SNOPR, DOE stated it believed the match the max-tech top-loading CCW’s rated efficiency level. Since all CCWs proposed top-loading level could be met larger capacity. These changes might not currently marketed at or near the by all competitors because the unit be possible to its existing tub fabrication proposed top-loading energy would be based on a standard top- cells while simultaneously meeting conservation standard use similar water- loading platform that uses a traditional demand, and could require a new saving techniques, Alliance stated that it agitator and no proprietary technology. building due to lack of space to ‘‘shoe- would not be appropriate to set a 74 FR 57738, 57762–63 (Nov. 9, 2009). horn’’ fabrication and to avoid shutting minimum efficiency standard at the The model that the LVM references in down. Alliance stated that its customers level proposed in the November 2009 its comment meets a 1.55 MEF/8.6 WF, do not want larger capacity washers SNOPR and proposed setting the and DOE research suggests that this because its tub size has been designed standard at 1.42 MEF/9.5 WF for top- model could be modified to meet the to match commercial laundry users’ loading CCWs instead. (Alliance, Public amended energy conversation standard. needs and load sizes, as evidenced by Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 139; DOE notes that the LVM has not refuted decades of sales and customer Alliance, No. 66.4 at p. 9) Whirlpool that this model could be modified to experience. (Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 4) and GE stated that they are supportive meet the amended energy conservation DOE estimates that the total of all standard levels proposed for standard, and while a manufacturer may conversion costs for the industry to CCWs in the November 2009 SNOPR. develop higher efficiency models in meet the top-loading amended energy However, Whirlpool also stated that order to qualify for energy star, tax conservation standard will be energy and water consumption levels credits, and similar rebates, DOE approximately $16.6 million. DOE more restrictive than 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF believes it is unlikely that a research thus suggests that the LVM’s for top-loading CCWs and 2.20 MEF/5.5 manufacturer would purposely risk its production facilities could be modified WF for front-loading CCWs would likely reputation and release a non-functional at a more modest cost than projected by lead to poor wash performance, poor product onto the market. DOE has noted the LVM to make a sufficient number of rinse performance, or both. GE noted throughout the rulemaking that the top-loading CCWs that would meet the that its max-tech top-loading CCW heavy concentration of earnings from amended energy conservation (which meets the proposed top-loading CCWs relative to its total clothes washer standards. DOE estimates that the standard) was designed for the on- business, its overall focus on majority of the conversion costs will premise laundry market, a relatively commercial laundry, and its relatively consist of product development, small sub-segment of the CCW market low revenue base compared to its engineering, testing, marketing, and and said that model has not yet principal CCW competitors would lead other costs required to make equipment demonstrated viability in laundromats. to the LVM being impacted designs comply with energy (Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. 3 and GE, disproportionately by any amended conservation standards while No. 67.9 at p. 1) Many of the Multiple efficiency standard for CCWs. DOE also addressing consumer acceptance issues Route Operators stated opposition to notes that TSL 3 avoids requiring raised by the LVM. As of December 31, any efficiency level above the baseline manufacturers, including the LVM, to 2008, Alliance stated in its SEC filings for CCWs on the basis of poor wash make concurrent, substantial that its principal line of credit was performance. Additionally, most of the investments in both top-loading and limited to an additional $16.2 million of Multiple Route Operators stated that front-loading platforms. DOE continues borrowing and that a substantial portion they had experimented with high to believe that the benefits of the of its long term debt is due concurrently efficiency top-loading CCWs (i.e., amended energy conservation standard with the compliance date of the final agitator-less models) and encountered outweigh the burdens, including the rule. DOE agrees with the LVM that the sufficient operational and wash negative impacts on manufacturers (see section VI.D). company’s current debt structure makes 33 A notation in the form ‘‘Alliance, No. 66.4 at Alliance stated that its most recent it more difficult to finance additional p. 5’’ identifies page 5 of a written comment SEC 10–Q for the quarter ending product development and capital submitted by Alliance entitled ‘‘Response to DOE September 30, 2009, shows that its long- expense. In response to these and other Commercial Clothes Washer SNOPR.’’ This term debt bank covenants limit concerns voiced by the LVM, DOE document was entered as comment number 66.4 in the docket for this rulemaking, along with a letter additional borrowing to $19.2 million, revised the proposed top-loading CCW submitted by Alliance entitled ‘‘Is Top-Loading a that its current credit facility must be energy conservation standard to a level Feature Within the Meaning of EPCA?’’ refinanced before January 27, 2011, and which a current top-loading LVM model

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1149

almost attains. Thus, the negative unconvinced that the numbers are as annex to house the expanded front- impacts on the LVM have been weighed stark as presented in the revised MIA. loader fabrication and assembly lines as in DOE’s consideration of the amended (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. long as top-loading clothes washer energy conservation standard. 67.4 at p. 33) ASAP and the Joint production continues. For example, the Alliance stated that the standards Comment questioned DOE’s estimates of LVM could continue to manufacture proposed in the November 2009 SNOPR the potential impacts on the LVM if the top-loading RCWs even after ceasing place 292 union laborers in its Ripon, market were to shift entirely to front- top-loading CCW production. While WI plant at risk of losing their jobs. Of loading CCWs. ASAP and the Joint some equipment and space could these 292 laborers, 150 union laborers Comment stated that the green-field potentially be re-purposed towards are attributed to CCW production and assumption in this analysis was not fabricating front-loader components 142 laborers are associated with valid, especially considering that the (i.e., large presses, machining centers, companion commercial clothes dryers. LVM is already making a substantial etc.), DOE research suggests that much The standards proposed in the number of front-loading washers, and of the space currently occupied by hard- November 2009 SNOPR could also since new buildings are costly and tooled top-loading clothes washer eliminate an additional 40 non- depreciate over a much longer schedule assembly lines in the LVM facility will production jobs. (Alliance, Public than new equipment. The Joint remain unavailable until the LVM Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 25; Comment argues that these assumptions ceases to produce top-loading clothes Alliance, No. 66.4 at p. 8) disproportionately increase the washers altogether. DOE expects the For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE annualized financial cost of conversion. LVM to continue to produce top-loading calculated the direct employment (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. clothes washers as long as it can to impacts using the GRIM and 67.4 at pp. 140–142; Joint Comment, No. fulfill customer demand. Consequently, information gathered from interviews 67.6 at pp. 5–6) ASAP also inquired if the space currently occupied by the top- with manufacturers. DOE estimated that a shift to only front-loading production loading clothes washer lines will likely there would be positive employment would involve a green-field continue to be occupied on the impacts among domestic CCW manufacturing facility even if top- compliance date of today’s final rule, manufacturers for TSL 1 through TSL 5. loading production is ceasing. (ASAP, necessitating an annex in which to Because the LVM had previously stated Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. house expanded front-loader assembly it could be eliminated from the 143) ASAP and the Joint Comment and fabrication. Alliance agreed that its commercial market, DOE also stated that a shift to only front-loading existing facility could not accommodate specifically investigated the LVM washer production would not force the the new equipment for front-loading employment using its CCW revenues LVM to completely redesign washers production and continue to produce its and additional employment estimates. nor incur expenses such as research and current volumes of top-loading washers. DOE estimated that if the LVM ceased development. Both ASAP and the Joint (Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, to produce soft-mount dryers and CCWs Comment argue that, because front- No. 67.4 at pp. 145–146) As illustrated that this would lead to a loss of 292 loading washers currently represent 25 in chapter 13 of the TSD, a complete production jobs. DOE estimated that a to 30 percent of the LVM’s unit transition to front-loading CCWs would complete closure of the Ripon, WI shipments, the LVM will have the likely lead to a market disruption since facility would result in the dismissal of operating experience to gradually switching costs for customers would be approximately 600 factory employees. reduce production costs and improve minimized. Consequently, DOE research 73 FR 60234, 62102–03 (Oct. 17, 2008). production designs without a complete suggests that the LVM would be For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE redesign. (ASAP, Public Meeting required to redesign its front-loader stated that it believes that the proposed energy conservation standard would Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 146; Joint platform to become more cost- allow the LVM to continue to produce Comment, No. 67.6 at p. 5) competitive. top-loading CCWs, mitigating any DOE research confirms that the LVM In appendix 13C of the SNOPR TSD, potential closure of its domestic has been gradually increasing its DOE estimated that the LVM would be manufacturing facility. 74 FR 57738, production of front-loading CCWs. eligible for about $4.1 million in Federal 57763 (Nov. 9, 2009). DOE did not However, the LVM’s production of top- production tax credits between 2007 receive any additional comments that loading CCWs still heavily outweighs its and 2010. ASAP and the Joint Comment suggest technical barriers would prevent production of front-loading CCWs. DOE questioned DOE’s conclusion that manufacturers from meeting the energy believes a complete shift to front- additional tax credits in 2010 are conservation standards and notes that loading CCWs would represent a radical unlikely. The Joint Comment estimated two competitors support the proposed departure from the much more gradual that additional credits in 2010 are likely amended energy conservation standards market transition that has been as production of front-loaders ramps up for top-loading CCWs. Thus, for today’s occurring. As illustrated in chapter 13 of further (ASAP, Public Meeting final rule, DOE estimates that the LVM the TSD, such a market disruption Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 126–129; would be able to continue to produce would disproportionately impact the Joint Comment, No. 67.6, at p. 6) ASAP top-loading CCWs, and that significant LVM since the LVM would have to questioned if DOE believed that the impacts on LVM manufacturing increase front-loader manufacturing LVM was reaching a limit on the employment due to today’s final rule are capacity by multiples, while its number of front-loading washers that it hence unlikely. Further discussion of competitors would have to increase could sell or produce. (ASAP, Public the LVM and the potential impacts on their overall front-loader manufacturing Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 126– direct employment for the CCW capacity by less than 5 percent to fully 129) ASAP also asked if there was an industry is presented in chapter 13 of transition their CCW production to only analysis to support the estimate of the the TSD. front-loading washers. Since top-loaders cap on machines that would qualify for ASAP stated that much of the SNOPR and front-loaders share few parts and the Federal production tax credit, and if analysis was driven by DOE’s concern require separate assembly lines, sub- such tax credits for 2007 were included for the precarious position of the LVM. assembly stations, etc., DOE concluded in the analysis. (ASAP, Public Meeting ASAP stated that it remains somewhat that the LVM would have to build an Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. 129, 135)

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Finally, the Joint Comment stated that, 2010.34 The revised estimates suggest necessary to produce high efficiency even though DOE’s analysis of the that the LVM will collect approximately equipment. Whirlpool also stated that if Federal production tax credits has $4.0 million in Federal production tax tax credits were offered in between the relatively little impact on the industry credits from 2008–2010 from the issuance of the final rule and the as a whole, the Federal production tax provisions updated by EIEA 2008 and a compliance date, they could have an credits will mitigate a significant total of $5.3 million from the program impact on the ability of individual portion of the conversion costs borne by from 2007–2010. The revised estimate manufacturers to make the capital the LVM to convert their entire for today’s final rule is approximately investment in new product platforms. production to front-loading washers. $1.2 million higher than the estimate (Whirlpool, No. 67.11 at p. 3) (Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at p. 6). published in the November 2009 DOE agrees that tax credits that were Alliance stated, while it has earned tax SNOPR. effective between the issuance of the credits for qualifying washers, these tax In the GRIM, DOE accounts for the final rule and the compliance date of the credits have not been used for a cash Federal production tax credit as a direct amended standards could have an benefit. (Alliance, No. 67.8 at p. 4) cash benefit in the base and standards impact on the ability of manufacturers cases that directly increases INPV. to fund capital investments. However, For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE Because 2009 is the base year to which because most of the benefit from the accounted for the impacts of the Federal industry cash flows are discounted, any EIEA 2008 takes place outside of the production tax credits updated by The Federal production tax credit from 2007 analysis period, DOE believes it is Energy Improvement and Extension Act and 2008 is not counted towards the unlikely that manufacturers could use of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–343; EIEA 2008). INPV analysis because it falls outside the credits to fund much of their capital Because only the LVM produces the analysis period. However, any tax conversion costs. qualifying CCWs, DOE based its benefit in 2009 and 2010 falls within the EJ recommended that DOE review its estimates of the potential benefits to the analysis period and hence increases Federal production tax credit CCW industry by estimating the industry value (potentially decreasing projections for 2010 if it adopts a strong potential Federal production tax credits the impacts on manufacturers due to standard that applies to all CCWs. EJ that the LVM could receive. Using energy conservation standards). DOE’s added that such a standard would likely publicly available information, recent revised Federal production tax credit cause manufacturers to ramp up SEC filings, and the information estimates for the LVM are production of qualifying washers over published in chapter 13 and appendix approximately $1.2 million and $0.4 time, not just beginning in 2013. (EJ, 13A of the October 2008 NOPR, DOE million for 2009 and 2010, respectively. Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at estimated the LVM’s front-loading CCW These revised figures do not pp. 137–138) shipment projections to 2010 and significantly impact the INPV calculated For today’s final rule, DOE revised its calculated the Federal production tax by DOE nor do they come close to Federal production tax credit credits for qualifying shipments. In the paying for a facility conversion to front- projections for 2010 using the LVM’s November 2009 SNOPR, DOE estimated load only CCW production. DOE most recent SEC filings. Based on the that the LVM would likely not qualify estimates that a wholesale conversion to LVM’s 10–Q for the quarter ending for any Federal production tax credits in only front-loading CCW production September 30, 2009, DOE revised its 2010. 74 FR 57738, 57763–64 (Nov. 9, would cost the LVM approximately 12 estimates to include Federal production 2009) DOE’s estimate was not based on times the total Federal production tax tax credits for 2010. DOE continues to a cap on the number of qualifying credit benefit DOE expects the LVM to believe that it is unlikely that washers the LVM could sell or produce; collect over the life of the program. (See manufacturers would shift their clothes rather, it was based on statements in the chapter 13 of the TSD for further washer production to exclusively LVM’s 10–Q filing for the quarter details.) While DOE research suggests manufacture front-loading washers in ending March 31, 2009. The 10–Q at that Federal production tax credits response to the Federal production tax that time suggested that the LVM’s could help the LVM implement gradual credits or the energy conservation front-loading production in 2010 would changes to its production facilities, such standards in today’s final rule. Thus, not increase significantly to qualify for tax credits would not substantially DOE relied on the forward-looking additional Federal production tax defray wholesale plant conversion costs. projections published by the LVM to credits. Whirlpool commented that the ability estimate CCW sales that qualify for the of a manufacturer to use an earned tax production tax credits. For today’s final rule, DOE updated Alliance and White & Case (W&C) its estimates using the most recent, credit is a function of the earnings situation for that manufacturer and that cited DOJ’s letter in response to the publicly available information to October 2008 NOPR that stated there many manufacturers cannot use earned calculate the likely benefit to the LVM appeared to be a real risk that at least tax credits in some years due to current from the tax credit provisions. DOE one manufacturer could not meet the economic conditions. (Whirlpool, No. updated the assumptions for the proposed amended energy conservation 67.11 at p. 3) Because the LVM reported estimated Federal production tax credit standard for top-loading CCWs. Both earnings from the tax credit and stated for 2009 and 2010 based on the LVM’s Alliance and W&C stated that DOE’s that it expected to earn a benefit from recent SEC filings. The LVM’s 10–Q response in the November 2009 SNOPR the tax credits in 2009, DOE calculated filing for the quarter ending September ignored DOJ’s conclusion that DOE the expected tax credits for the LVM in 30, 2009, reported higher tax benefits should consider keeping the existing 2009 and 2010 and assumed that the from the energy efficiency tax program standard in place for top-loading CCWs LVM would benefit in those years. compared to the 10–Q filing for the to maintain competition. (Alliance, No. Whirlpool agreed with DOE’s quarter ending March 31, 2009. DOE 66.4 at p. 3; W&C, Public Meeting conclusion that the past tax credits have revised its figures for 2009 based on this Transcript, No. 67.4 at pp. 26–27) only offset a small fraction of the costs new information and used the LVM’s Alliance stated that DOJ’s most recent historical estimate for the 34 See http://www.comlaundry.com/investors/ recommendation to keep the existing growth rate of the commercial laundry relations/sec-filings.asp for a list of Alliance standard in place for top-loading CCWs industry to estimate LVM shipments for Laundry System’s SEC filings. was the appropriate course of action for

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1151

this rulemaking. (Alliance, No. 66.4 at p. they would face higher prices if Custom user interfaces are required, 9; Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, Alliance were eliminated from the both for compliance with the Americans No. 67.4 at pp. 29–30) In addition, market. (Multiple Route Operators, No. with Disabilities Act, and to facilitate Multiple Route Operators stated they 67.8 at pp. 1–3) consumer education. Resultant were concerned that the standards In response to the October 2008 conversion costs have to be amortized proposed in the October 2008 NOPR NOPR, DOJ found that there was a real across a much lower production volume could force Alliance to exit the risk that one or more of the than is typically found in the residential manufacture of top-loading CCWs, manufacturers could not meet the market, and critical parts and service which would cause them significant proposed standard for top-loading personnel have to be present in the harm because they would pay more for CCWs. 74 FR 57738, 57802 (Nov. 9, territory of any route operator that is washers. Multiple Route Operators 2009) DOE revised its proposed going to consider a rival. Hence, while urged DOE to adopt a standard that standards in part to ease these entering the CCW market may not would enable Alliance to remain the competitive concerns raised by the DOJ represent significant technical hurdles, lowest-cost CCW provider. (Multiple and other interested parties. 74 FR the operational and financial challenges Route Operators, No. 67.8 at pp. 1–3) 57738, 57763 (Nov. 9, 2009). are sufficient to limit the market to a In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE In chapter 13 of the TSD, DOE offers small number of competitors. proposed amended standards of 1.76 multiple reasons why it believes the DOE also received comment regarding MEF/8.3 WF for top-loading CCWs. 73 LVM has succeeded in the CCW market its characterization of Alliance as an FR 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008). In despite low overall production volumes: LVM. The Joint Comment argued that response, DOJ found that there was a (1) Well-depreciated machinery and DOE’s characterization of Alliance as an real risk that one or more CCW legacy design; (2) effective customer and LVM is a significant misnomer, as the manufacturers could not meet the service networks; (3) a large installed LVM reported revenues equivalent to proposed standard for top-loading base of top-loading CCWs; and (4) stock approximately half of the total CCW CCWs. DOJ stated that it was concerned of repair parts that ensures a large industry revenue and claims to be the that meeting the proposed standards market for replacement machines. leading manufacturer of stand-alone could require substantial investment in Multiple Route Operators confirmed commercial laundry equipment in North the development of new technology that many of these advantages, stating that America. (Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at p. some suppliers of top-loading CCWs they believe Alliance offers CCWs with 5) might not find economically justifiable. the lowest total cost of ownership For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 74 FR 57738, 57802 (Nov. 9, 2009). In because its washers have the longest presented a separate analysis of the response to the concerns raised by DOJ functional life. In addition, Multiple LVM. 73 FR 62034, 62103–04 (Oct. 17, and other concerns raised by interested Route Operators stated that the quality, 2008). Although DOE continues to agree parties, DOE proposed a top-loading service, and unique products with CCW with the Joint Comment that the LVM CCW standard of 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF in features separate Alliance from other has a significant share of the CCW the November 2009 SNOPR. 74 FR manufacturers. (Multiple Route industry based on reported revenues, 57738, 57763 (Nov. 9, 2009). In today’s Operators, No. 67.8 at pp. 1–3) DOE DOE maintains that the LVM does not final rule, DOE determined that 1.60 believes that route operators’ and have the same overall clothes washer MEF/8.5 WF is the maximum top- distributors’ large inventory of service manufacturing scale as its competitors loading CCW efficiency level that is parts and repair knowledge represent a (for both residential products and economically justified and significant switching cost, discouraging commercial equipment) and should technologically feasible while being customers from adopting rival hence be characterized as an LVM in the sensitive to concerns raised by DOJ and platforms. As long as the LVM can context of this rulemaking. DOE notes the LVM. continue to produce replacement top- that most CCWs on the market in the EJ stated that DOE failed to consider loading CCWs, DOE does not believe the United States are based largely on RCW the low barriers to entry in the CCW LVM will be placed at a substantial platforms that are upgraded selectively. market in its analysis of the competition disadvantage relative to its larger Some investments (such as the issue. While there are currently only competitors. However, due to the controllers) are CCW-specific but only three CCW manufacturers, if the relatively small stock of front-loading comprise part of the total unit cost. The departure of any of these manufacturers clothes washers installed in the CCW majority of capital expenditures related increases markups significantly, higher market, DOE believes that a wholesale to tooling, equipment, and other profits would allow RCW manufacturers conversion of the CCW market to front- machinery in a plant can typically be or small players to expand into the loading machines would eliminate most applied to the residential as well as the commercial market. EJ asserted that, of the LVM’s advantages that have commercial market. Thus, overall (both because these manufacturers would not allowed it to remain competitive. RCW and CCW) manufacturing scale has have to design completely new DOE research suggests that, while the a significant impact on the cost- equipment or construct a new cost of entering the CCW market may be effectiveness of potential platform manufacturing facility to begin selling construed as low, statements by upgrades. A manufacturer with a high- CCWs, it would be ‘‘irrational’’ for DOE multiple manufacturers indicate that volume residential line can cost justify to contend that there would be any actual success in the CCW market much more capital-intensive solutions if significant adverse impact on depends on many factors. For example, they are applicable in both markets, competition in the commercial market. DOE notes that a top-loading, whereas an LVM could lack the scale EJ stated that DOE must explain why horizontal-axis clothes washer used to and capital to make such investments. new entrants would be unable to gain a be marketed into the CCW market but Thus, an LVM may be required to foothold in the CCW market by taking that it was withdrawn for a number of purchase upgrade options from third- advantage of this disturbance in the reasons. Additionally, converting party vendors instead of developing in- status quo if one manufacturer exited residential platforms for commercial use house solutions that reduce costs at the market. (EJ, No. 67.5 at. pp. 8–9; is not as simple as adding a coin box; higher volumes. In the CCW market, the Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67.4 at p. substantial investments are required to most direct competitor to the LVM has 138) Multiple Route Operators believe integrate a variety of payment systems. over 60 times the overall shipment

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1152 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

volumes of the LVM. This scale expenditures in other sectors of the I. Utility Impact Analysis difference also affects purchasing power economy. There are many reasons for because a large, diversified appliance these differences, including wage The utility impact analysis estimates manufacturer can use its production differences and the fact that the utility the change in the forecasted power scale to achieve better prices for raw sector is more capital intensive and less generation capacity for the Nation that materials and commonly purchased labor intensive than other sectors. (See would be expected to result from components such as controllers, motors, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional adoption of new standards. For the belts, switches, sensors, and wiring Multipliers: A User Handbook for the November 2009 SNOPR and today’s harnesses. Even if a large company Regional Input-Output Modeling System final rule, DOE calculated this change purchases fewer items of a certain (RIMS II), Washington, DC, U.S. using the NEMS–BT computer model. component, its overall revenue Department of Commerce, 1992.) NEMS–BT models certain policy relationship with a supplier may still Efficiency standards have the effect of scenarios such as the effect of reduced enable it to achieve better pricing than energy consumption by fuel type. The reducing consumer utility bills. Because a smaller competitor, even if that analysis output provides a forecast for reduced consumer expenditures for competitor buys certain components in the needed generation capacities at each energy likely lead to increased higher quantities. Lastly, high-volume TSL. The estimated net benefit of the expenditures in other sectors of the manufacturers benefit from being able to standard in today’s final rule is the economy, the general effect of efficiency source their components through difference between the forecasted standards is to shift economic activity sophisticated supply chains on a generation capacities by NEMS–BT and from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., worldwide basis. Therefore, DOE the AEO 2009 April Release Reference concludes that an LVM is unlikely to be the utility sector) to more labor- Case. DOE obtained the energy savings able to compete solely on manufacturing intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and inputs associated with efficiency cost. manufacturing sectors). Thus, based on improvement on CCW energy the BLS data alone, DOE believes net H. Employment Impact Analysis consumption electricity and natural gas national employment will increase due from the NIA. These inputs reflect the DOE considers employment impacts to shifts in economic activity resulting effects of both fuel (natural gas) and in the domestic economy as one factor from standards for CCWs. in selecting a proposed standard. electricity consumption savings. Employment impacts include direct and In developing the November 2009 Chapter 14 of the final rule TSD indirect impacts. Direct employment SNOPR, DOE estimated indirect presents results of the utility impact impacts are changes in the number of national employment impacts using an analysis. employees for manufacturers of input/output model of the U.S. economy In its November 2009 SNOPR, DOE equipment subject to standards, their called Impact of Sector Energy did not estimate impacts on water and 35 suppliers, and related service firms. The Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a wastewater utilities because the water MIA addresses these impacts. special-purpose version of the ‘‘U.S. and wastewater utility sector exhibits a Indirect employment impacts from Benchmark National Input-Output’’ (I– high degree of geographic variability standards consist of the net jobs created O) model designed to estimate the or eliminated in the national economy, produced by a large diversity of water national employment and income resource availability, institutional other than in the manufacturing sector effects of energy-saving technologies. being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced history, and regulatory context. 73 FR The ImSET software includes a 62034, 62082 (Oct. 17, 2008). EJ spending by end users on energy computer-based I–O model with (electricity, gas (including liquefied commented that given the water supply structural coefficients to characterize petroleum gas), and oil); (2) reduced and water and wastewater infrastructure economic flows among 188 sectors most spending on new energy supply by the concerns that are affecting and will utility industry; (3) increased spending relevant to industrial, commercial, and continue to affect many parts of the on the purchase price of new residential building energy use. The country, it would be arbitrary and equipment; and (4) the effects of those Joint Comment stated that DOE must capricious for the Department to fail to three factors throughout the economy. consider its projections that an increase address the impact on water and DOE expects the net monetary savings in employment will result from the wastewater utilities of reduced water from standards to be redirected to other adoption of standards in weighing the consumption resulting from commercial forms of economic activity. DOE also economic costs and benefits of strong clothes washer standards. (EJ, No. 67.5 expects these shifts in spending and efficiency standards. (Joint Comment, at p. 13) economic activity to affect the demand No. 44 at p. 13) As described in section In response, DOE refers again to the for labor in the short term, as explained VI.C.3 below, DOE takes into diversity of the water and wastewater below. consideration the indirect employment One method for assessing the possible impacts estimated using ImSET when utility sector. Whereas in the case of the effects on the demand for labor of such evaluating alternative standard levels. electric utility sector DOE has a tool and shifts in economic activity is to compare Direct employment impacts on the data set that allows estimation of sectoral employment statistics manufacturers that produce CCWs are impacts on infrastructure (in terms of developed by the BLS. The BLS analyzed in the MIA, as discussed in installed generation capacity), DOE does regularly publishes its estimates of the section IV.G. For today’s final rule, DOE not have (and is not aware of) a number of jobs per million dollars of has made no change to its method for comparable tool and data set that would economic activity in different sectors of estimating employment impacts. For allow estimation of impacts on the economy, as well as the jobs created further details, see chapter 15 of the infrastructure in the water and elsewhere in the economy by this same final rule TSD. wastewater utility sector resulting from economic activity. Data from BLS commercial clothes washer standards. Therefore, for today’s final rule, DOE indicate that expenditures in the utility 35 More information regarding ImSET is available sector generally create fewer jobs (both online at: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ did not estimate impacts to the water directly and indirectly) than external/technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf and wastewater utility sector.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1153

J. Environmental Assessment emissions caps is flexible among EGUs New or amended energy conservation Pursuant to the National and is enforced through the use of standards would reduce NOX emissions Environmental Policy Act of 1969 emissions allowances and tradable in those 22 States that are not affected (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 42 permits. Energy conservation standards by the CAIR. DOE used the NEMS–BT U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE could lead EGUs to trade allowances to forecast emission reductions from the prepared a draft environmental and increase SO2 emissions that offset CCW standards in today’s final rule. Similar to emissions of SO and NO , assessment (EA) of the potential impacts some or all SO2 emissions reductions 2 X future emissions of Hg would have been of the standards for CCWs in today’s attributable to the standard. DOE is not subject to emissions caps. The Clean Air final rule, which it has included as certain that there will be reduced Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have chapter 16 of the TSD. DOE found that overall SO2 emissions from the permanently capped emissions of Hg the environmental effects associated standards. The NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast from new and existing coal-fired plants with the standards for CCWs were not emissions reductions currently indicates in all States beginning in 2010 (70 FR significant. Therefore, DOE is issuing a that no physical reductions in power 28606). The CAMR was vacated by the Finding of No Significant Impact sector emissions would occur for SO . D.C. Circuit in its decision in New Jersey (FONSI), pursuant to NEPA, the 2 The above considerations prevent DOE v. Environmental Protection Agency regulations of the Council on from estimating SO reductions from prior to the publication of the October Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 2 standards at this time. 2008 NOPR. 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for Even though DOE is not certain that 2008). However, the NEMS–BT model compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part there will be reduced overall emissions DOE initially used to estimate the 1021). The FONSI is available in the from the standard, there may be an changes in emissions for the proposed docket for this rulemaking. economic benefit from reduced demand rule assumed that Hg emissions would In the EA, DOE estimated the for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity be subject to CAMR emission caps. reduction in power sector emissions of savings from standards decrease the Thus, after CAMR was vacated, DOE CO2, NOX, and Hg using the NEMS–BT generation of SO2 emissions from power was unable to use the NEMS–BT model computer model. Because the on-site production, which can lessen the need to estimate any changes in the physical operation of CCWs requires use of fossil to purchase emissions allowance quantity of Hg emissions that would fuels and results in emissions of CO2 credits, and thereby decrease the costs result from standard levels it considered and NOX, DOE also accounted for the of complying with regulatory caps on in the October 2008 NOPR. Instead, reduction in these emissions due to the emissions. DOE used an Hg emission rate (in metric standards. Much like SO2 emissions, NOX tons of Hg per energy produced) based In the EA, NEMS–BT is run similarly emissions from 28 eastern States and the on the AEO 2008. Because virtually all to the AEO NEMS, except that CCW District of Columbia (D.C.) are limited Hg emitted from electricity generation is energy use is reduced by the amount of under the CAIR. Although CAIR has from coal-fired power plants, DOE based energy saved (by fuel type) due to the been remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court the emission rate on the metric tons of TSLs. The inputs of national energy of Appeals for the District of Columbia Hg emitted per TWh of coal-generated savings come from the NIA analysis; the Circuit (D.C. Circuit), it will remain in electricity. To estimate the reduction in output is the forecasted physical effect until it is replaced by a rule Hg emissions, DOE multiplied the emissions. The estimated net benefit of consistent with the Court’s July 11, emission rate by the reduction in coal- the standard in today’s final rule is the 2008, opinion in North Carolina v. EPA. generated electricity associated with the difference between the forecasted 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also standard levels considered. DOE emissions by NEMS–BT at each TSL North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 continued to use the above approach, and the AEO 2009 April Release (D.C. Cir. 2008). These court positions updated for the AEO 2009 April Release, Reference Case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 were taken into account in the to estimate the Hg emission reductions emissions using a detailed module that November 2009 SNOPR and in today’s due to standards for the SNOPR. For provides results with broad coverage of final rule. Because all States covered by today’s final rule, however, DOE used all sectors and inclusion of interactive CAIR opted to reduce NOX emissions the latest version of NEMS–BT, which effects. through participation in cap and trade reflects CAMR being vacated and does DOE has determined that sulfur programs for electric generating units, not incorporate CAMR emission caps, to dioxide (SO2) emissions from affected emissions from these sources are capped estimate the reduction in Hg emissions. Electric Generating Units (EGUs) are across the CAIR region. In addition to electricity generation, subject to nationwide and regional In the 28 eastern States and D.C. the operation of gas-fired CCWs results emissions cap and trading programs that where CAIR is in effect, DOE’s forecasts in emissions of CO2 and NOX at the sites create uncertainty about the impact of indicate that no NOX emissions where the appliances are used. NEMS– energy conservation standards on SO2 reductions will occur due to energy BT provides no means for estimating emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act conservation standards because of the such emissions. Therefore, DOE sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for permanent cap. Energy conservation calculated separate estimates of the all affected EGUs. SO2 emissions from standards have the potential to produce effect of the potential standards on site 28 eastern States and the District of an economic impact in the form of emissions of CO2 and NOX based on Columbia (D.C.) are also limited under lower prices for NOX emissions emissions factors derived from the the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, allowances, if their impact on electricity literature. Because natural gas published in the Federal Register on demand is large enough. However, DOE combustion does not yield SO2 May 12, 2005; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, has concluded that the standards in emissions, DOE did not report in either 2005), which creates an allowance- today’s final rule will not have such an the November 2009 SNOPR or today’s based trading program that will effect because the estimated reduction final rule the effect of the proposed gradually replace the Title IV program in electricity demand in States covered standards on site emissions of SO2. in those States and D.C. (The recent by the CAIR cap would be too small to For its November 2009 SNOPR, DOE legal history surrounding CAIR is affect allowance prices for NOX under conducted a separate analysis of discussed below.) The attainment of the the CAIR. wastewater discharge impacts as part of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1154 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

the environmental assessment for estimates of the social cost of carbon these efforts and proposes ranges and commercial clothes washers. 73 FR (SCC). values for interim social costs of carbon 62034, 62112–13 (Oct. 17, 2008). For The SCC is intended to be a monetary used in this rule. It should be today’s final rule, DOE retained the measure of the incremental damage emphasized that the analysis described same analysis method for estimating resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) below is preliminary. These complex wastewater discharge impacts. emissions, including, but not limited to, issues are of course undergoing a EJ commented that given the water net agricultural productivity loss, process of continuing review. Relevant supply concerns that are affecting and human health effects, property damages agencies will be evaluating and seeking will continue to affect many parts of the from sea level rise, and changes in comment on all of the scientific, country, it would be arbitrary and ecosystem services. Any effort to economic, and ethical issues before capricious for the Department to fail to quantify and to monetize the harms establishing final estimates for use in address the environmental benefits of associated with climate change will future rulemakings. reduced water consumption resulting raise serious questions of science, The interim judgments resulting from from commercial clothes washer economics, and ethics. But with full the recent interagency review process standards. (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. 13) In regard for the limits of both can be summarized as follows: (a) DOE response, DOE notes that the quantification and monetization, the and other Federal agencies should environmental impacts of reduced water SCC can be used to provide estimates of consider the global benefits associated use are highly variable across the the social benefits of reductions in GHG with the reductions of CO2 emissions country. DOE has neither an analytical emissions. resulting from efficiency standards and tool that could estimate such impacts For at least three reasons, any single other similar rulemakings, rather than nor sufficient information to draw estimate of the SCC will be contestable. continuing the previous focus on definitive conclusions about such First, scientific and economic domestic benefits; (b) these global knowledge about the impacts of climate impacts. Therefore, it was not able to benefits should be based on SCC change continues to grow. With new account for potential environmental estimates (in 2007$) of $55, $33, $19, and better information about relevant benefits of reduced water consumption $10, and $5 per ton of CO2 equivalent questions, including the cost, burdens, resulting from the commercial clothes emitted (or avoided) in 2007 (in and possibility of adaptation, current washer standards considered for today’s calculating the benefits reported in this estimates will inevitably change over final rule. notice, DOE has escalated the 2007$ time. Second, some of the likely and values to 2008$ for consistency with K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and potential damages from climate other dollar values presented in this Other Emissions Impacts change—for example, the value society notice); (c) the SCC value of emissions places on adverse impacts on that occur (or are avoided) in future For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE endangered species—are not included years should be escalated using an calculated the possible monetary benefit in all of the existing economic analyses. annual growth rate of 3 percent from the of CO , NO , and Hg reductions. 2 X These omissions may turn out to be current values); and (d) domestic Cumulative monetary benefits were significant in the sense that they may benefits are estimated to be determined using discount rates of 3 mean that the best current estimates are approximately 6 percent of the global and 7 percent. DOE monetized too low. Third, controversial ethical values. These interim judgments are reductions in CO emissions due to 2 judgments, including those involving based on the following considerations. standards based on a range of monetary the treatment of future generations, play 1. Global and domestic estimates of values drawn from studies that attempt a role in judgments about the SCC (see SCC. Because of the distinctive nature of to estimate the present value of the in particular the discussion of the the climate change problem, estimates marginal economic benefits (based on discount rate, below). of both global and domestic SCC values the avoided marginal social cost of To date, regulations have used a range should be considered, but the global carbon) likely to result from reducing of values for the SCC. For example, a measure should be ‘‘primary.’’ This greenhouse gas emissions. The marginal regulation proposed by the U.S. approach represents a departure from social cost of carbon is an estimate of Department of Transportation (DOT) in past practices, which relied, for the the monetary value to society of the 2008 assumed a value of $7 per ton CO2 most part, on measures of only domestic environmental damages of CO2 (2006$) for 2011 emission reductions impacts. As a matter of law, both global emissions. (with a range of $0–$14 for sensitivity and domestic values are permissible; the In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used analysis). Regulation finalized by DOE relevant statutory provisions are the range $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for used a range of $0–$20 (2007$). Both of ambiguous and allow the agency to reductions in the year 2007 in 2007$. these ranges were designed to reflect the choose either measure. (It is true that These estimates were intended to value of damages to the United States Federal statutes are presumed not to represent the lower and upper bounds resulting from carbon emissions, or the have extraterritorial effect, in part to of the costs and benefits likely to be ‘‘domestic’’ SCC. In the final Model Year ensure that the laws of the United States experienced in the United States. The 2011 Corporate Average Fuel Economy respect the interests of foreign lower bound was based on an rule, DOT used both a domestic SCC sovereigns. But use of a global measure assumption of no benefit and the upper value of $2/t CO2 and a global SCC for the SCC does not give extraterritorial bound was based on an estimate of the value of $33/t CO2 (with sensitivity effect to Federal law and hence does not mean value of worldwide impacts due analysis at $80/t CO2), increasing at 2.4 intrude on such interests.) to climate change that was reported by percent per year thereafter. It is true that under OMB guidance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate In recent months, a variety of agencies analysis from the domestic perspective Change (IPCC) in its ‘‘Fourth Assessment have worked to develop an objective is required, while analysis from the Report.’’ For the November 2009 SNOPR methodology for selecting a range of international perspective is optional. and today’s final rule, DOE is relying on interim SCC estimates to use in The domestic decisions of one nation a new set of values recently developed regulatory analyses until improved SCC are not typically based on a judgment by an interagency process that estimates are developed. The following about the effects of those decisions on conducted a thorough review of existing summary reflects the initial results of other nations. But the climate change

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1155

problem is highly unusual in the sense analysis in Richard S. J. Tol’s, ‘‘The increases in food-borne illnesses and in that it involves (a) a global public good Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers, the quantity and toxicity of airborne in which (b) the emissions of one nation and Catastrophes, Economics: The allergens, also appear to be excluded. In may inflict significant damages on other Open-Access, Open-Assessment E- addition, there has been considerable nations and (c) the United States is Journal,’’ Vol. 2, 2008-25. http:// recent discussion of the risk of actively engaged in promoting an www.economics-ejournal.org/ catastrophe and of how best to account international agreement to reduce economics/journalarticles/2008–25 for worst-case scenarios. It is not clear worldwide emissions. (2008). With that starting point, it is whether the three IAMs take adequate In these circumstances, the global proposed to ‘‘filter’’ existing SCC account of these potential effects. measure is preferred. Use of a global estimates by using those that (1) are 3. Use a model-weighted average of measure reflects the reality of the derived from peer-reviewed studies; (2) the estimates at each discount rate. At problem and is expected to contribute to do not weight the monetized damages to this time, there appears to be no the continuing efforts of the United one country more than those in other scientifically valid reason to prefer any States to ensure that emission countries; (3) use a ‘‘business as usual’’ of the three major IAMs (FUND, PAGE, reductions occur in many nations. climate scenario; and (4) are based on and DICE). Consequently, the estimates Domestic SCC values are also the most recent published version of are based on an equal weighting of presented. The development of a each of the three major integrated estimates from each of the models. domestic SCC is greatly complicated by assessment models (IAMs): FUND, DICE Among estimates that remain after the relatively few region- or country- and PAGE (Policy Analysis of the applying the filter, the average of all specific estimates of the SCC in the Greenhouse Effect). estimates within a model is derived. literature. One potential estimate comes Proposal (1) is based on the view that The estimated SCC is then calculated as from the DICE (Dynamic Integrated those studies that have been subject to the average of the three model-specific Climate Economy, William Nordhaus) peer review are more likely to be averages. This approach ensures that the model. In an unpublished paper, reliable than those that have not been. interim estimate is not biased towards Nordhaus (2007) produced Proposal (2) is based on a principle of specific models or more prolific authors. disaggregated SCC estimates using a neutrality and simplicity; it does not 4. Apply a 3-percent annual growth regional version of the DICE model. He treat the citizens of one nation rate to the chosen SCC values. SCC is reported a U.S. estimate of $1/t CO2 differently on the basis of speculative or assumed to increase over time, because (2007 value, 2007$), which is roughly controversial considerations. Proposal future emissions are expected to 11 percent of the global value. (3) stems from the judgment that as a produce larger incremental damages as An alternative source of estimates general rule, the proper way to assess a physical and economic systems become comes from a recent EPA modeling policy decision is by comparing the more stressed as the magnitude of effort using the FUND (Climate implementation of the policy against a climate change increases. Indeed, an Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation counterfactual state where the policy is implied growth rate in the SCC is and Distribution, Center for Integrated not implemented. A departure from this produced by most studies that estimate Study of the Human Dimensions of approach would be to consider a more economic damages caused by increased Global Change) model. The resulting dynamic setting in which other GHG emissions in future years. But estimates suggest that the ratio of countries might implement policies to neither the rate itself nor the domestic to global benefits varies with reduce GHG emissions at an unknown information necessary to derive its key parameter assumptions. With a 3- future date, and the United States could implied value is commonly reported. In percent discount rate, for example, the choose to implement such a policy now light of the limited amount of debate U.S. benefit is about 6 percent of the or in the future. thus far about the appropriate growth global benefit for the ‘‘central’’ (mean) Proposal (4) is based on three rate of the SCC, applying a rate of 3 FUND results, while, for the complementary judgments. First, the percent per year seems appropriate at corresponding ‘‘high’’ estimates FUND, PAGE, and DICE models now this stage. This value is consistent with associated with a higher climate stand as the most comprehensive and the range recommended by IPCC (2007) sensitivity and lower global economic reliable efforts to measure the damages and close to the latest published growth, the U.S. benefit is less than 4 from climate change. Second, the latest estimate (Hope, 2008). percent of the global benefit. With a 2- versions of the three IAMs are likely to For climate change, one of the most percent discount rate, the U.S. share is reflect the most recent evidence and complex issues involves the appropriate about 2 to5 percent of the global learning, and hence they are presumed discount rate. OMB’s current guidance estimate. to be superior to those that preceded offers a detailed discussion of the Based on this available evidence, a them. It is acknowledged that earlier relevant issues and calls for discount domestic SCC value equal to 6 percent versions may contain information that is rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. It also of the global damages is used in this missing from the latest versions. Third, permits a sensitivity analysis with low rulemaking. This figure is in the middle any effort to choose among them, or to rates for intergenerational problems. (‘‘If of the range of available estimates from reject one in favor of the others, would your rule will have important the literature. It is recognized that the 6 be difficult to defend at this time. In the intergenerational benefits or costs you percent figure is approximate and absence of a clear reason to choose might consider a further sensitivity highly speculative and alternative among them, it is reasonable to base the analysis using a lower but positive approaches will be explored before SCC on all of them. discount rate in addition to calculating establishing final values for future The agency is keenly aware that the net benefits using discount rates of 3 rulemakings. current IAMs fail to include all relevant and 7 percent.’’) The SCC is being 2. Filtering existing analyses. There information about the likely impacts developed within the general context of are numerous SCC estimates in the from greenhouse gas emissions. For the current guidance. existing literature, and it is legitimate to example, ecosystem impacts, including The choice of a discount rate, make use of those estimates to produce species loss, do not appear to be especially over long periods of time, a figure for current use. A reasonable included in at least two of the models. raises highly contested and exceedingly starting point is provided by the meta- Some human health impacts, including difficult questions of science,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

economics, philosophy, and law. See, individuals’ willingness to trade off range of estimates usually associated e.g., William Nordhaus, ‘‘The Challenge consumption across periods as with Ramsey discounting. of Global Warming (2008); Nicholas measured by the estimated post-tax It is recognized that the arguments Stern, The Economics of Climate average real returns to private above—for use of market behavior and Change’’ (2007); ‘‘Discounting and investment (e.g., the Standard & Poor’s the Ramsey equation—face objections in Intergenerational Equity’’ (Paul Portney 500 Index). In the climate setting, the 5- the context of climate change, and of and John Weyant, eds., 1999). Under percent discount rate may be preferable course there are alternative approaches. imaginable assumptions, decisions to the riskless rate because it is based on In light of climate change, it is possible based on cost-benefit analysis with high risky investments and the return to that consumption in the future will not discount rates might harm future projects to mitigate climate change is be higher than consumption today, and generations—at least if investments are also risky. In contrast, the 3-percent if so, the Ramsey equation will suggest not made for the benefit of those riskless rate may be a more appropriate a lower figure. Some people have generations. (See Robert Lind, ‘‘Analysis discount rate for projects where the suggested that a very low discount rate, for Intergenerational Discounting,’’ id. at return is known with a high degree of below 3 percent, is justified in light of 173, 176–177.) At the same time, use of confidence (e.g., highway guardrails). the ethical considerations calling for a low discount rates for particular projects Second, 5 percent, and not 3 percent, principle of intergenerational neutrality. might itself harm future generations, by is roughly consistent with estimates See Nicholas Stern, ‘‘The Economics of ensuring that resources are not used in implied by reasonable inputs to the Climate Change’’ (2007); for contrary a way that would greatly benefit them. theoretically derived Ramsey equation, views, see William Nordhaus, ‘‘A In the context of climate change, which specifies the optimal time path Question of Balance’’ (2008); Martin questions of intergenerational equity are for consumption. That equation Weitzman, ‘‘Review of the Stern Review especially important. specifies the optimal discount rate as Reasonable arguments support the use the sum of two components. The first on the Economics of Climate Change,’’ of a 3-percent discount rate. First, that reflects the fact that consumption in the Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3): rate is among the two figures suggested future is likely to be higher than 703–724 (2007). Additionally, some by OMB guidance, and hence it fits with consumption today (even accounting for analyses attempt to deal with existing National policy. Second, it is climate impacts), so diminishing uncertainty with respect to interest rates standard to base the discount rate on the marginal utility implies that the same over time; a possible approach enabling compensation that people receive for monetary damage will cause a smaller the consideration of such uncertainties delaying consumption, and the 3- reduction of utility in the future. is discussed below. Richard Newell and percent rate is close to the risk-free rate Standard estimates of this term from the William Pizer, ‘‘Discounting the Distant of return, proxied by the return on long economics literature are in the range of Future: How Much Do Uncertain Rates term inflation-adjusted U.S. Treasury 3 to 5 percent. The second component Increase Valuations?’’ J. Environ. Econ. Bonds. (In the context of climate reflects the possibility that a lower Manage. 46 (2003) 52–71. change, it is possible to object to this weight should be placed on utility in The application of the methodology standard method for deriving the the future, to account for social outlined above yields estimates of the discount rate.) Although these rates are impatience or extinction risk, which is SCC that are reported in Table IV.8. currently closer to 2.5 percent, the use specified by a pure rate of time These estimates are reported separately of 3 percent provides an adjustment for preference (PRTP). A conventional using 3-percent and 5-percent discount the liquidity premium that is reflected estimate of the PRTP is 2 percent. (Some rates. The cells are empty in rows 10 in these bonds’ returns. observers believe that a principle of and 11 because these studies did not At the same time, other arguments intergenerational equity suggests that report estimates of the SCC at a 3- support use of a 5-percent discount rate. the PRTP should be close to zero.) It percent discount rate. The model- First, that rate can also be justified by follows that a discount rate of 5 percent weighted means are reported in the final reference to the level of compensation is within the range of values which are or summary row; they are $33 per t CO2 for delaying consumption, because it fits able to be derived from the Ramsey at a 3-percent discount rate and $5 per with market behavior with respect to equation, albeit at the low end of the t CO2 with a 5-percent discount rate.

TABLE IV.8—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) ESTIMATES ($/t CO2 IN 2007 IN 2007$), BASED ON 3% AND 5% DISCOUNT RATES *

Climate Model Study scenario 3% 5%

1 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... FUND default ...... 6 ¥1 2 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... SRES A1b ...... 1 ¥1 3 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... SRES A2 ...... 9 ¥1 4 ...... FUND ...... Link and Tol 2004 ...... No THC ...... 12 3 5 ...... FUND ...... Link and Tol 2004 ...... THC continues ...... 12 2 6 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Constant PRTP ...... 5 ¥1 7 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Gollier discount 1 ...... 14 0 8 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Gollier discount 2 ...... 7 ¥1 FUND Mean ...... 8.25 0 9 ...... PAGE ...... Wahba & Hope 2006 ...... A2-scen ...... 57 7 10 ...... PAGE ...... Hope 2006 ...... 7 11 ...... DICE ...... Nordhaus 2008 ...... 8

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1157

TABLE IV.8—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) ESTIMATES ($/t CO2 IN 2007 IN 2007$), BASED ON 3% AND 5% DISCOUNT RATES *—Continued

Climate Model Study scenario 3% 5%

Summary Model-weighted mean...... 33 5 * The sample includes all peer reviewed, non-equity-weighted estimates included in Tol (2008), Nordhaus (2008), Hope (2008), and Anthoff et al. (2009), that are based on the most recent published version of FUND, PAGE, or DICE and use business-as-usual climate scenarios. All val- ues are based on the best available information from the underlying studies about the base year and year dollars, rather than the Tol (2008) as- sumption that all estimates included in his review are 1995 values in 1995$. All values were updated to 2007 using a 3-percent annual growth rate in the SCC, and adjusted for inflation using GDP deflator.

DOE used the model-weighted mean It is true that there is uncertainty over time; in contrast, one alternative values of $33 and $5 per ton (2007$), as about interest rates over long time approach would assume that there is a these represent the estimates associated horizons. Recognizing that point, single discount rate with equal with the 3-percent and 5-percent Newell and Pizer have made a careful probability of 3 percent and 5 percent. discount rates, respectively. The 3- effort to adjust for that uncertainty. See Table IV.9 reports on the application percent and 5-percent estimates have Newell and Pizer, supra. This is a of the Newell-Pizer adjustments. The independent appeal and at this time a relatively recent contribution to the clear preference for one over the other literature. precise numbers depend on the is not warranted. These values were There are several concerns with using assumptions about the data generating then escalated to 2008$ and rounded to this approach in this context. First, it process that governs interest rates. $34 and $5. Thus, DOE has also would be a departure from current OMB Columns (1a) and (1b) assume that included—and centered its current guidance. Second, an approach that ‘‘random walk’’ model best describes the attention on—the average of the would average what emerges from data and uses 3-percent and 5-percent estimates associated with these discount discount rates of 3 percent and 5 discount rates, respectively. Columns rates, which is approximately $20 (in percent reflects uncertainty about the (2a) and (2b) repeat this, except that it 2008$). (Based on the $20 global value, discount rate, but based on a different assumes a ‘‘mean-reverting’’ process. As the domestic value would be model of uncertainty. The Newell-Pizer Newell and Pizer report, there is approximately $1 per ton of CO2 approach models discount rate stronger empirical support for the equivalent.) uncertainty as something that evolves random walk model.

TABLE IV.9—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON ESTIMATES ($/t CO2 IN 2007 IN 2007$),* USING NEWELL & PIZER ADJUSTMENT FOR FUTURE DISCOUNT RATE UNCERTAINTY **

Random- Mean- walk model reverting model Model Study Climate scenario 3% 5% 3% 5% (1a) (1b) (2a) (2b)

1 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... FUND default ...... 10 0 7 ¥1 2 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... SRES A1b ...... 2 0 1 ¥1 3 ...... FUND ...... Anthoff et al. 2009 ...... SRES A2 ...... 15 0 10 ¥1 4 ...... FUND ...... Link and Tol 2004 ...... No THC ...... 20 6 13 4 5 ...... FUND ...... Link and Tol 2004 ...... THC continues ...... 20 4 13 2 6 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Constant PRTP ...... 9 0 6 ¥1 7 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Gollier discount 1 ...... 14 0 14 0 8 ...... FUND ...... Guo et al. 2006 ...... Gollier discount 2 ...... 7 ¥1 7 ¥1 FUND Mean ...... 12 1 9 0 9 ...... PAGE ...... Wahba & Hope 2006 ...... A2-scen ...... 97 13 63 8 10 ...... PAGE ...... Hope 2006 ...... 13 ...... 8 11 ...... DICE ...... Nordhaus 2008 ...... 15 ...... 9

Summary Model-weighted mean...... 55 10 36 6 * The sample includes all peer reviewed, non-equity-weighted estimates included in Tol (2008), Nordhaus (2008), Hope (2008), and Anthoff et al. (2009), that are based on the most recent published version of FUND, PAGE, or DICE and use business-as-usual climate scenarios. All val- ues are based on the best available information from the underlying studies about the base year and year dollars, rather than the Tol (2008) as- sumption that all estimates included in his review are 1995 values in 1995$. All values were updated to 2007 using a 3-percent annual growth rate in the SCC, and adjusted for inflation using GDP deflator. ** Assumes a starting discount rate of 3 percent. Newell and Pizer (2003) based adjustment factors are not applied to estimates from Guo et al. (2006) that use a different approach to account for discount rate uncertainty (rows 7–8).

The resulting estimates of the social $55, with the 3-percent and 5-percent model has greater support from the data, cost of carbon are necessarily greater. discount rates, respectively. The DOE also used the SCC values of $10 When the adjustments from the random application of the mean-reverting and $55 (2007$). When escalated to walk model are applied, the estimates of adjustment yields estimates of $6 and 2008$, these values are approximately the social cost of carbon are $10 and $36 (2007$). Since the random walk $10 and $56.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

In summary, in considering the estimates of the adverse impact of received in response to the November potential global benefits resulting from childhood exposure to methyl mercury 2009 SNOPR addressed the burdens and reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used on IQ for American children, and benefits associated with new energy values based on a social cost of carbon subsequent loss of lifetime economic efficiency standards, the information of approximately $5, $10, $20, $34 and productivity resulting from these IQ DOE used in its analyses, results of and $56 per metric ton avoided in 2007 losses. The high-end estimate of $1.3 inferences drawn from the analyses, (values expressed in 2008$). DOE also billion per year in 2000$ (which works impacts of standards, the merits of the calculated the domestic benefits based out to $33.3 million per ton emitted per different TSLs and standards options on a value of approximately $1 per year in 2008$) is based on an estimate DOE considered, other issues affecting metric ton avoided in 2007. To value the of the current aggregate cost of the loss adoption of standards for CCWs, and the CO2 emissions reductions expected to of IQ in American children that results DOE rulemaking process. DOE result from amended standards for from exposure to Hg of U.S. power plant addresses these comments in this CCWs in 2013–2043, DOE escalated the origin.36 DOE’s low-end estimate of section. above values for 2007 using a 3-percent $0.66 million per ton emitted in 2004$ A. Proposed Trial Standard Levels escalation rate. As indicated in the ($0.745 million per ton in 2008$) was (TSLs) for Commercial Clothes Washers discussion above, estimates of SCC are derived from an evaluation of mercury assumed to increase over time since control that used different methods and For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE future emissions are expected to assumptions from the first study, but based the TSLs on efficiency levels produce larger incremental damages as was also based on the present value of explored in the November 2007 ANOPR, physical and economic systems become the lifetime earnings of children and selected the TSLs on consideration more stressed as the magnitude of exposed to Hg.37 of economic factors and current market climate change increases. Although As previously stated, DOE’s analysis conditions. ASAP suggested that DOE most studies that estimate economic assumed the presence of nationwide set TSLs based upon industry damages caused by increased GHG emission caps on SO2 and caps on NOX benchmarks such as current and emissions in future years produce an emissions in the 28 States covered by forthcoming ENERGY STAR implied growth rate in the SCC, neither CAIR. In the presence of these caps, the qualification levels and pending Federal the rate itself nor the information NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE tax incentive performance levels. necessary to derive its implied value is used to forecast emissions reduction (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. commonly reported. However, applying indicated that no physical reductions in 40.5 at p. 33 and pp. 148–149) EIEA a rate of 3 percent per year is consistent power sector emissions would occur 2008 provided an Energy Efficient with the range recommended by IPCC (although there remains uncertainty Appliance Credit to manufacturers for (2007). about whether physical reduction of any RCW or CCW (front-loading or top- DOE also investigated the potential SO2 will occur), but that the standards loading) produced domestically through monetary benefit of reduced NOX and could put slight downward pressure on 2010 with an efficiency level of at least Hg emissions from the TSLs it the prices of emissions allowances in 2.0 MEF/6.0 WF, or a larger credit for considered. As noted above, new or cap-and-trade markets. Estimating this one that achieves 2.2 MEF/4.5 WF. The amended energy conservation standards effect is very difficult because factors legislation also provides a separate tax would reduce NOX emissions in those such as credit banking can change the credit for any top-loading RCW that 22 States that are not affected by CAIR, trajectory of prices. From its modeling achieves an efficiency level of at least in addition to the reduction in site NOX to date, DOE is unable to estimate a 1.72 MEF/8.0 WF or a larger credit for emissions nationwide. DOE estimated benefit from energy conservation one that exceeds 1.8 MEF/7.5 WF. DOE the monetized value of NOX emissions standards on the prices of emissions considered the impacts of these tax reductions resulting from each of the allowances at this time. See the credits on the CCW industry in detail as TSLs considered for today’s final rule environmental assessment in the final part of the MIA. DOE accounts for the based on environmental damage rule TSD for further details. Federal tax credit as a direct cash estimates from the literature. Available benefit in the base and standards cases estimates suggest a very wide range of V. Discussion of Other Comments that increases the INPV. See section monetary values for NOX emissions, Since DOE opened the docket for this IV.G of today’s supplemental notice and ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per rulemaking, it has received more than appendix 13C of the SNOPR TSD for ton of NOX from stationary sources, 44 written comments from a diverse set further discussion of this issue. measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a of parties, including manufacturers and B. Proposed Standards for Commercial range of $442 to $4,540 per ton in their representatives, wholesalers and Clothes Washers 2008$). Refer to the OMB, Office of distributors, energy conservation Information and Regulatory Affairs, advocates, State officials and agencies, For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE ‘‘2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and electric utilities. Section IV of this made the preliminary determination and Benefits of Federal Regulations and preamble discusses comments DOE that the standards for top-loading and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, received on the analytic methodologies front-loading CCWs listed in Table II.1 and Tribal Entities,’’ Washington, DC, it used. Additional comments DOE are technologically feasible and for additional information. economically justified, and invited For Hg emissions reductions, DOE 36 Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to comment on these proposed standard estimated the national monetized values Drive Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 Ann. levels. resulting from the TSLs considered for N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006). In response, Alliance stated that it 37 Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, ‘‘Designing today’s rule based on environmental Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation opposes the standard proposed for top- damage estimates from the literature. of Mercury Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01, loading CCWs, noting that it is based on The impact of mercury emissions from AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, a ‘‘residential construction’’ product power plants on humans is considered Washington, DC (2004). A version of this paper was with almost no acceptance in the published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics highly uncertain. However, DOE in 2006. The estimate was derived by back- marketplace, instead of a true identified two estimates of the calculating the annual benefits per ton from the net ‘‘commercial construction’’ product environmental damage of Hg based on present value of benefits reported in the study. meeting the needs of the U.S.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1159

commercial clothes washer market increase the installed price differential to less efficient top-loaders. The Joint segment. It stated that the proposed between front-loaders and top-loaders, Comment recommended that a standard standard is inappropriate because which could result in increased energy be set for CCWs as a single product equipment meeting the standard would and water consumption to the extent class, with performance levels that are not provide true hot water (120 °F or that the increased installed price readily achievable by today’s high- greater), true warm water (80 °F to 120 differential would encourage the market efficiency front-loading washers. It °F), or adequate rinsing. Alliance to shift from front-loaders to less stated that the highest standard level commented that WEB Service Company, efficient top-loaders. It noted that the identified for front-loaders (MEF 2.35/ California’s largest multi-housing route modest energy and water savings that WF 4.4) maximizes energy and life-cycle operator, deployed an all-spray-rinse DOE has estimated for its proposed cost savings when applied to all top-loading CCW in the late 1990’s and separate front-loader standards could be commercial washers, and thus should was forced to take back all deployed exceeded by that standard’s impact on be the strongest candidate for adoption. units because they didn’t meet the the relative shipments of top-loading Regarding the problems that the needs of the users. It stated that it could and front-loading washers. It added that recommended standards could pose for support a top-loading class standard of if DOE’s standards were to necessitate the LVM (i.e., Alliance), the Joint MEF ≥ 1.42/WF ≤ 9.5 (TSL 2), and that design changes to top-loaders Comment stated that the standard it supports the proposed standard for exclusively, the resulting increase in should take effect in stages, allowing front-loading CCWs. (Alliance, No. 66.4 installed costs for top-loaders would most capital conversion costs to be at p. 4; Alliance, No. 67.8 at pp. 1, 4) foster the market’s transition to front- deferred for an additional two years. It Whirlpool commented that it supports loaders, increasing the net energy and added that the manufacturer hardship both the top-loading and front-loading water savings produced by the standard. waiver process in current law remains standards proposed in the November (EJ, No. 67.5 at pp. 10–11) open to Alliance should unforeseen 2009 SNOPR. It stated that energy and EJ and the California Utilities also circumstances arise making compliance water consumption levels that are more noted the availability of flexible impossible. (Joint Comment, No. 67.6 at restrictive than these will likely lead to regulatory approaches that would p. 1) poor wash performance, poor rinse facilitate adoption of a strong, uniform In considering standards for today’s performance, or both. (Whirlpool, No. set of standards for all commercial final rule, DOE first notes that it has 67.11 at p. 3) AHAM and GE stated washers and also minimize any adverse retained separate equipment classes for support for the proposed MEF and water impacts on competition. They stated top-loading and front-loading CCWs, for factor levels that DOE proposed for that DOE could adopt a tiered approach reasons discussed in section IV.A. DOE front-loading CCWs. (AHAM, No. 67.12 to standards, maintaining a 2013 has retained the analyses of standards at p. 3; GE, No. 67.9 at p. 1) GE added compliance date for initial energy and for both equipment classes that it that it supports DOE’s proposed MEF water efficiency standards, while conducted for the SNOPR, which are and WF requirements for front-load phasing in stronger requirements later. described in section IV. Section VI commercial clothes washers. In This approach, they said, would give presents a discussion of DOE’s reasons addition, GE expressed support for the LVM (Alliance) and other for adopting the standard levels in DOE’s proposed MEF and WF manufacturers additional time to raise today’s final rule. requirements for top-load commercial needed capital and to optimize product clothes washers, but stated its concern designs and manufacturing processes to VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions that the max-tech model on which this meet strong standards at a lower cost. A. Trial Standard Levels level is based is designed for a relatively (EJ, No. 67.5 at pp. 9–10; California limited segment of the market (the on- Utilities, No. 67.10 at pp. 4–5) EJ added DOE analyzed the benefits and premises laundry commercial segment), that alternatively, DOE could burdens of a number of TSLs for the and that this model has not yet been accommodate Alliance’s key concerns CCWs that are the subject of today’s demonstrated as sustainable in the by granting a temporary waiver from final rule. As discussed in section IV.A, harsher environment of laundromats, compliance with revised standards. This for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE based where the units are subject to tougher would enable DOE to adopt effective the TSLs on efficiency levels explored conditions such as overloading. (GE, No. standards while giving Alliance an in the November 2007 ANOPR, and 67.9 at p. 1) extended compliance period in which to selected the TSLs on consideration of EJ and the California Utilities raise needed capital and optimize its economic factors and current market advocated adoption of a single set of product designs and manufacturing conditions. As also discussed in section energy and water efficiency standards processes. (EJ, No. 67.5 at p. 9–10) IV.C.1.a, DOE eliminated the maximum for all commercial clothes washers, The Joint Comment stated that DOE’s technologically efficiency level of 1.76 which will deliver greater energy and proposed rule establishing two product MEF/8.3 WF for the top-loading water savings than separate standards classes for CCWs is not satisfactory for equipment class in the November 2009 for top-loading and front-loading either of the proposed classes, as it SNOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE commercial washers. The California would require manufacturers to make considered the same TSLs it considered Utilities stated that its preliminary substantial investments to achieve for the November 2009 SNOPR. analysis suggests that over the next 30 modest improvements in the efficiency Table VI.1 presents the TSLs analyzed years, DOE could save as much as 50 of a protected class of inherently less- for today’s final rule and the efficiency percent more in energy savings and over efficient top-loaders, while establishing levels (consisting of a combination of 200 percent more in water savings with a standard for front-loaders that 97 MEF and WF) within each TSL for each a single equipment class standard (set at percent of the front-loading models on class of equipment. In all, DOE has levels of MEF 2.35/WF 4.4) than the the market today already meet. It noted considered five TSLs. TSL 1 standard that DOE has proposed in the that a stronger standard for front-loaders corresponds to the first candidate SNOPR. (EJ, No. 67.5 at pp. 10–11; would widen the price differential standard level from each equipment California Utilities, No. 67.10 at pp. 3– between front-loaders and top-loaders, class and represents the efficiency level 4) EJ stated that the proposed separate which would encourage a portion of the for each class with the least significant standards for front-loaders would market to shift from front-loaders back design change. TSL 2 represents the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

second candidate standard level for efficiency level. Therefore, TSL 2 difference between the two equipment front-loading washers while keeping corresponds to the candidate standard classes. For TSL 4, top-loading washers top-loading washers at its first candidate levels for each equipment class that still are retained at their maximum standard level. Over 96 percent of the represent a significant share of the efficiency level while front-loading front-loading CCW equipment Stock market. TSL 3 represents the second washers are incremented to their third Keeping Units (SKUs) currently on the candidate standard level for top-loading candidate standard level. Finally, TSL 5 market either meet or exceed the second washers (the maximum efficiency level corresponds to the maximum candidate standard level for front- for this class), and keeps front-loading technologically feasible level for each loading washers. In the case of the washers at the second candidate equipment class. In progressing from second candidate standard level for top- standard level. For TSL 3, front-loading TSL 1 to TSL 5, the LCC savings, NES, loading washers, a significant washers were held to the second and NPV all increase. TSL 5 represents percentage of the market, over 35 candidate standard level in order to the level with the minimum LCC and percent, also meets or exceeds this minimize the equipment price maximum NES and NPV.

TABLE VI.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Top-Loading: MEF ...... 1.42 1 .42 1.60 1 .60 1.60 WF ...... 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Front-Loading: MEF ...... 1.80 2 .00 2.00 2 .20 2.35 WF ...... 7.5 5.5 5.5 5.1 4.4

B. Significance of Energy Savings CCWs. Table VI.2 shows DOE’s NES than energy savings closer to the estimates (and national water savings present. Each TSL considered in this To estimate the energy savings results) for each TSL. The table also rulemaking would result in significant through 2043 due to amended energy shows the magnitude of the savings if energy savings, and the amount of conservation standards, DOE compared they are discounted at 7-percent and savings increases with higher energy the energy consumption of equipment 3-percent discount rates. Discounted conservation standards (ranging from an under the base case to energy energy savings represent a policy estimated 0.04 quads to 0.12 quads, consumption of this equipment under perspective where energy savings undiscounted, for TSLs 1 through 5). each TSL that DOE considered for further in the future are less significant

TABLE VI.2—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR CCWS [Savings for Units Sold from 2013 to 2043]

Undiscounted 3% Discounted 7% Discounted Trial standard level National en- National water National en- National water National en- National water ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion quads gallons quads gallons quads gallons

1 ...... 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 2 ...... 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 3 ...... 0.10 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.04 4 ...... 0.11 0.16 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.04 5 ...... 0.12 0.21 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.06

C. Economic Justification trends, repair and maintenance costs, fifth output is the average PBP for the equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 1. Economic Impacts on Commercial customer purchasing a design that Customers Table VI.3 and Table VI.4 show the complies with the TSL. LCC and PBP results for each CCW a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period For the top-loading equipment class, application for the top-loading the highest average LCC savings and To evaluate the net economic impact equipment class, and Table VI.5 and shortest PBP occur at TSLs 3, 4, and 5. Table VI.6 show the results for the front- of standards on CCW customers, DOE At these TSLs, 85 percent of multi- loading equipment class. DOE’s LCC conducted LCC and PBP analyses for family customers have a net benefit, and each TSL. More efficient CCWs affect and PBP analyses provided five outputs 96 percent of laundromat customers customers in two ways: (1) Purchase for each considered TSL. The first three have a net benefit. For the front-loading price is expected to increase; and (2) outputs are the percentages of standard- annual operating expense is expected to compliant machine purchases that equipment class, the highest average decrease. DOE analyzed the net effect by would result in (1) a net LCC increase, LCC savings occur at TSL 5, and the calculating the LCC. Inputs used for (2) no impact, or (3) a net LCC savings PBP is lower than at TSL 4. TSLs 1 calculating the LCC include total for the customer. The fourth output is through 3 have little impact because installed costs, annual energy savings, the average net LCC savings from most of the market is already at or above average electricity prices, energy price standard-compliant equipment. The this level in the base case.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1161

TABLE VI.3—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Customers with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average installed operating Average savings No Net price cost LCC $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ $ % % %

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.50 760 3,263 4,023 ...... 1, 2 ...... 1.42/9.50 883 3,153 4,036 ¥8.1 43.3 35.3 21.5 11.7 17.3 3, 4, 5 ...... 1.60/8.50 974 2,873 3,847 178.6 13.8 1.2 85.0 4.6 5.6

TABLE VI.4—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Customers with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average installed operating Average savings No Net price cost LCC $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ $ % % %

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.50 760 3,422 4,182 ...... 1, 2 ...... 1.42/9.50 883 3,326 4,209 ¥17.7 51.4 35.3 13.3 7.9 9.1 3, 4, 5 ...... 1.60/8.50 974 3,025 3,999 190.0 2.9 1.2 95.9 2.8 3.0

TABLE VI.5—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Customers with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average installed operating Average savings No Net price cost LCC $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ $ % % %

Baseline ...... 1.72/8.00 1,365 2,855 4,220 ...... 1 ...... 1.80/7.50 1,365 2,855 4,091 4.7 0.0 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 2, 3 ...... 2.00/5.50 1,388 2,726 3,690 19.5 0.0 96.3 3.7 0.4 0.4 4 ...... 2.20/5.10 1,428 2,302 3,596 91.5 1.4 23.1 75.5 3.0 3.2 5 ...... 2.35/4.40 1,470 2,168 3,484 202.7 1.1 0.0 98.9 2.9 3.1

TABLE VI.6—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Customers with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average installed operating Average savings No Net price cost LCC $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ $ % % %

Baseline ...... 1.72/8.00 1,365 2,014 4,380 ...... 1 ...... 1.80/7.50 1,365 3,014 4,240 5.2 0.0 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 2, 3 ...... 2.00/5.50 1,388 2,874 3,787 22.0 0.0 96.3 3.7 0.2 0.2 4 ...... 2.20/5.10 1,428 2,400 3,695 93.4 0.0 23.1 76.9 1.8 1.9 5 ...... 2.35/4.40 1,470 2,267 3,572 216.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.6 1.7

b. Commercial Consumer Subgroup owners (small multi-family property realize LCC savings similar to the Analysis owners and small laundromats), the general population. The difference LCC impacts and PBPs are different between the small business population Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE estimated the impact of the from those associated with the general and the general population occurs in the considered TSLs on the following CCW population. percentage of each population that customer subgroups: (1) Small business For the top-loading equipment class, realizes LCC savings from standards. owners, and (2) customers without Table VI.7 shows the LCC impacts and With the exception of TSL 1 for top- municipal water and sewer. PBPs for small multi-family property loading washers, an overwhelming For customers without municipal owners and small laundromats, while majority of the small business and water and sewer, the LCC impacts and Table VI.8 shows the same for the front- general populations benefit from PBPs are similar to the LCC impacts and loading equipment class. For all TSLs standards at each TSL. But for both PBPs for the full sample of CCW for both equipment classes, both sets of equipment classes, a larger percentage customers. But for small business small business owners, on average, of the general population benefits from

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

standards than do small business average. Because of the higher discount of small businesses still benefit from owners. This occurs because small rates, smaller businesses do not value higher CCW standards at all TSLs, with businesses do not have the same access future operating costs savings from more the exception of TSL 1 for the top- to capital as larger businesses. As a efficient CCWs as much as the general loading equipment class. result, smaller businesses have a higher population. But to emphasize, in spite average discount rate than the industry of the higher discount rates, a majority TABLE VI.7—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Households with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average Average installed operating LCC savings No Net price cost $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ $ $ % %

Multi-Family Application

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.50 760 2,659 3,419 ...... 1, 2...... 1.42/9.50 883 2,569 3,452 (22.0) 50.7 35.6 13.7 11.7 17.7 3, 4, 5 ...... 1.60/8.50 974 2,341 3,315 112.6 21.2 1.5 77.4 4.5 5.6

Laundromat Application

Baseline ...... 1.26/9.50 760 2,963 3,723 ...... 1, 2 ...... 1.42/9.50 883 2,880 3,764 (26.1) 58.6 35.6 5.8 7.8 9.2 3, 4, 5 ...... 1.60/8.50 974 2,620 3,594 140.9 5.6 1.5 92.9 2.8 3.0 Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.

TABLE VI.8—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years Households with TSL MEF/WF Average Average Average Average installed operating LCC savings No Net price cost $ $ Net cost impact benefit Median Average $ % % % %

Multi-Family Application

Baseline ...... 1.72/8.00 1,365 2,327 3,693 ...... 1 ...... 1.80/7.50 1,365 2,327 3,587 3.7 0.0 96.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 2, 3 ...... 2.00/5.50 1,388 2,222 3,265 14.9 0.0 96.4 3.6 0.4 0.5 4 ...... 2.20/5.10 1,428 1,877 3,196 69.1 4.1 22.2 73.7 3.0 3.2 5 ...... 2.35/4.40 1,470 1,768 3,113 151.7 4.2 0.0 95.8 2.9 3.1

Laundromat Application

Baseline ...... 1.72/8.00 1,365 1,643 3,977 ...... 1 ...... 1.80/7.50 1,365 2,611 3,855 4.2 0.0 96.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 2, 3 ...... 2.00/5.50 1,388 2,490 3,467 17.6 0.0 96.4 3.6 0.2 0.2 4 ...... 2.20/5.10 1,428 2,079 3,392 75.9 0.0 22.2 77.7 1.8 1.9 5 ...... 2.35/4.40 1,470 1,964 3,291 176.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.6 1.7

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback first-year energy savings resulting from CCWs. As required by EPCA, DOE based the standard. (42 U.S.C. the calculation on the assumptions in As discussed above, EPCA establishes 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE calculated a the DOE test procedures for CCWs. (42 a rebuttable presumption that an energy rebuttable-presumption PBP for each U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As a result, conservation standard is economically TSL to determine whether DOE could DOE calculated a single rebuttable- justified if the increased purchase cost presume that a standard at that level is presumption payback value, and not a for equipment that meets the standard is economically justified. Table VI.9 shows distribution of PBPs, for each TSL. less than three times the value of the the rebuttable-presumption PBPs for

TABLE VI.9—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Payback period, years

TSL Top-loading Front-loading Multi-family Lauundromat Multi-family Laundromat application application application application

1 ...... >100 >100 0 0 2 ...... >100 >100 1.2 1.3

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1163

TABLE VI.9—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS—Continued

Payback period, years

TSL Top-loading Front-loading Multi-family Lauundromat Multi-family Laundromat application application application application

3 ...... 24.0 >100 1.2 1.3 4 ...... 24.0 >100 9.4 17.3 5 ...... 24.0 >100 10.0 17.6

With the exception of TSLs 1 to 3 for industry as a function of TSLs in the analysis period. In the scenario that front-loading CCWs, the TSLs in Table GRIM. The difference in INPV between considers the benefits of the tax credits, VI.9 do not have rebuttable-presumption the base case and the standards case is the base case INPV increases by PBPs of less than 3 years. As stated an estimate of the economic impacts approximately $1.6 million. As above, in addition to calculating the that implementing that standard level previously stated, although the base- rebuttable-presumption PBP DOE would have on the entire industry. For case and standards-case INPV increase routinely conducts a thorough economic today’s final rule notice, DOE continues as a result of Federal production tax analysis that considers the full range of to use the above methodology and credits, the benefits do not significantly impacts, including those to consumers, presents the results in the subsequent mitigate possible impacts due to manufacturers, the Nation, and the sections. See chapter 13 of the TSD for standards. For additional information environment, as required under 42 additional information on MIA on the assumptions and calculations of U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of methodology and results. Federal production tax credits for this full analysis serve as the basis for CCWs, see appendix 13C of the TSD. a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results DOE to definitively determine the Also discussed in section IV.G of economic justification for a potential Using scenarios based on two today’s final rule, DOE incorporated a standard level (thereby supporting or shipment projections from the NIA, sensitivity analysis from the NIA that rebutting the results of any preliminary DOE estimated the impact of amended impacts shipments in the MIA. The determination of economic energy conservation standards for CCWs methodology and subsequent INPV justification.) Section IV.D provides a on the INPV of the CCW industry. The results from the sensitivity analysis are complete discussion of how DOE impact consists of the difference found in appendix 11C of the TSD. considered the range of impacts to select between INPV in the base case and To assess the lower end of the range the standards in today’s final rule. INPV in the standards case. INPV is the of potential impacts for the CCW primary metric used in the MIA, and industry, DOE considered a scenario 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers represents one measure of the fair value wherein unit shipments will not be For the November 2009 SNOPR, DOE of the industry in today’s dollars. DOE impacted regardless of new energy used the INPV in the MIA to compare calculated the INPV by summing all of conservation standards—this scenario is the financial impacts of different TSLs the net cash flows, discounted at the called the base-case shipments scenario. on CCW manufacturers. 74 FR 57738, CCW industry’s cost of capital or To assess the higher end of the range of 57773–76 (Nov. 9, 2009). The INPV is discount rate. potential impacts for the CCW industry, the sum of all net cash flows discounted As discussed in section IV.G of DOE considered a scenario in which by the industry’s cost of capital today’s final rule, DOE also considered total industry shipments would (discount rate). DOE used the GRIM to the impact of Federal production tax decrease due to the combined effects of compare the INPV of the base case (no credits on the CCW industry. DOE does increases in purchase price and new energy conservation standards) to not include the benefit of these tax decreases in operating costs due to new that of each TSL for the CCW industry. credits in its results shown below. DOE energy conservation standards—this To evaluate the range of cash-flow includes these results in appendix 13C scenario is called the price elasticity of impacts on the CCW industry, DOE of the TSD. DOE estimated that the total demand scenario. In both scenarios, it is constructed different scenarios using benefit of these Federal production tax assumed that manufacturers will be able different assumptions for shipments that credits to the CCW industry from 2007 to maintain the same gross margins (as correspond to the range of anticipated through 2010 would be approximately a percentage of revenues) that are market responses. Each scenario results $5.3 million. Because DOE discounts currently obtained in the base case. in a unique set of cash flows and the industry cash flows to the 2009 base Table VI.10 through Table VI.11 show corresponding industry value at each year, DOE estimates that approximately the changes in INPV that DOE estimates TSL. These steps allowed DOE to $1.6 million of the total benefit from the would result from the TSLs DOE compare the potential impacts on the tax credits will occur during the considered for this final rule.

TABLE VI.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH BASE-CASE SHIPMENTS. NOT INCLUDING DOE’S ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup with base-case shipments]

Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4 5

INPV ...... 2008$ millions ...... 62 65 63 57 54 41 Change in INPV ...... 2008$ millions* ...... 4 1 (5) (8) (20)

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH BASE-CASE SHIPMENTS. NOT INCLUDING DOE’S ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS—Continued [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup with base-case shipments]

Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4 5

% ...... 5.97 2.24 ¥7.81 ¥12.73 ¥33.09 Amended Energy Conservation Standards 2008$ millions ...... 0.00 3.12 18.72 22.56 35.87 Equipment Conversion Expenses. Amended Energy Conservation Standards 2008$ millions ...... 0.00 0.62 1.66 2.44 5.09 Capital Investments. Total Investment Required ...... 2008$ millions ...... 0.0 3.7 20.4 25.0 41.0 * Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.

TABLE VI.11—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH BASE-CASE SHIPMENTS. PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP WITH BASE-CASE SHIPMENTS [Not including DOE’s estimates of Federal production tax credits]

Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4 5

INPV ...... 2008$ millions ...... 62 64 62 55 51 39 Change in INPV ...... 2008$ millions* ...... 2.8 0.5 (7.0) (10.2) (23.0) % ...... 4.50 0.76 ¥11.39 ¥16.57 ¥37.30 Amended Energy Conservation Standards 2008$ millions ...... 0.00 3.12 18.72 22.56 35.87 Equipment Conversion Expenses. Amended Energy Conservation Standards 2008$ millions ...... 0.00 0.62 1.66 2.44 5.09 Capital Investments. Total Investment Required ...... 2008$ millions ...... 0.0 3.7 20.4 25.0 41.0 * Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.

The November 2009 SNOPR discusses profits and possibly cause CCW industry. DOE used statistical data the estimated impact of amended CCW manufacturers to exit from the market. from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 standards on INPV for each equipment DOE did not identify any additional Annual Survey of Manufactures 38 (2006 class. 74 FR 57738, 57775–76 (Nov. 9, DOE regulations that would affect the ASM) and 2006 Current Industry 2009). See chapter 13 of the TSD for manufacturers of CCW apart from the Report 39 (2006 CIR), the results of the details. ones discussed in the October 2008 engineering analysis, and interviews NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62104 (Oct. 17, b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden with manufacturers to estimate the 2008). These included other DOE inputs necessary to calculate industry- While any one regulation may not regulations, State regulations, and wide labor expenditures and domestic impose a significant burden on international standards. For further employment levels. manufacturers, the combined effects of information about the cumulative several regulations may have serious regulatory burden on the CCW industry, Using the GRIM, DOE calculates that consequences for some manufacturers, see chapter 13 of the TSD. there are 188 U.S. production workers groups of manufacturers, or an entire in the CCW industry. Using the CIR industry. Assessing the impact of a c. Impacts on Employment data, DOE estimates that approximately single regulation may overlook this To quantitatively assess the impacts 81 percent of CCWs sold in the United cumulative regulatory burden. of energy conservation standards on States are manufactured domestically. DOE recognizes that each regulation CCW manufacturing employment, DOE Today’s final rule estimates the impacts can significantly affect manufacturers’ used the GRIM to estimate the domestic on U.S. production workers in the CCW financial operations. Multiple labor expenditures and number of industry impacted by energy regulations affecting the same employees in the base case and at each conservation standards as shown in manufacturer can reduce manufacturers’ TSL from 2009 through 2043 for the Table VI.12.

TABLE VI.12—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2013 IN THE COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER INDUSTRY

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2013 ...... 188 204 204 222 224 228 Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2013 ...... 16 16 33 36 40

38 The 2006 Annual Survey of Manufactures is 39 The 2006 Current Industry Report is available available online at: http://www.census.gov/mcd/ online at: http://www.census.gov/cir/www/ asmhome.html. alpha.html.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1165

The November 2009 SNOPR rule for top-loading CCWs mitigates that competitors. Due to this combination of discussed the estimated impacts of risk. market concentration and size, the LVM amended CCW standards on As reported in the November 2009 is at greater risk of material harm to its manufacturing employment. 74 FR SNOPR, multiple manufacturers stated business due to any regulation that 57738, 57776–77 (Nov. 9, 2009). A during interviews that front-loading affects commercial laundry products further discussion of the potential CCWs represent a relatively small than its competitors, regardless of the impacts of amended energy segment of their total production TSL chosen. conservation standards on volumes. Depending on the For today’s final rule, DOE manufacturing employment for the CCW manufacturer, front-loading production reevaluated the CCW energy capacity may need to be substantially industry at each TSLs are presented in conservation standards proposed in the expanded to meet the demand that top- chapter 13 of the TSD. November 2009 SNOPR in response to loading production lines currently meet. comments received from interested d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity This expansion could possibly affect parties. DOE continues to believe that capacity until new production lines the energy conservation standards According to the majority of CCW come on-line to service demand. In adopted in today’s final rule greatly manufacturers, amended energy addition, manufacturers stated that the lessen the potential disadvantages faced conservation standards could higher prices of front-loading washers by the LVM. Further details of the potentially impact manufacturers’ could lead to a decrease in shipments. separate analysis of the impacts on the production capacity depending on the This could lead to a permanently lower efficiency level required. For today’s production capacity as machines are LVM are found in chapter 13 of the final rule, DOE continues to believe repaired and the equipment lifetime of TSD. manufacturers will be able to maintain existing washers is extended. 74 FR 3. National Impact Analysis manufacturing capacity levels and 57738, 57777 (Nov. 9, 2009). DOE a. Amount and Significance of Energy continue to meet market demand under research continues to suggest that the Savings amended energy conservation standards energy conservation standards in as long as manufacturers can continue today’s final rule can be achieved by all To estimate the energy savings to offer top-loading and front-loading manufacturers using existing platforms through 2043 that would be expected to CCWs. and technologies; hence, there appears result from amended CCW energy As stated in the November 2009 little reason for the market to wholly conservation standards, DOE compared SNOPR, a very high efficiency standard transition to front-loading CCWs. the projected energy consumption of for top-loading CCWs could potentially A further discussion of the potential CCWs under the base case to energy impacts of amended energy cause one or more manufacturer(s) to consumption of this equipment under conservation standards on abandon further manufacture of top- each of the considered TSLs. The energy manufacturing capacity for the CCW loading CCWs after the compliance date consumption calculated in the NIA industry is presented in chapter 13 of (due to concerns about wash quality, for takes into account energy losses in the the TSD. example). Instead of manufacturing top- generation and transmission of loading CCWs, manufacturers could e. Impacts on Subgroups of electricity as discussed in section VI.B. elect to switch their entire production Manufacturers Table VI.13 and Table VI.14 show the over to front-loading CCWs. Since top- As discussed in the November 2009 forecasted national energy and water loading and front-loading CCWs share SNOPR, 74 FR 57738, 57777 (Nov. 9, savings at each TSL for top-loading and few, if any parts, are built on completely 2009), DOE evaluated the impacts of front-loading CCWs, respectively. In separate assembly lines, and are built at amended energy conservation standards addition to undiscounted savings, the very different production volumes, a on subgroups of manufacturers. As tables show the magnitude of the manufacturer may not be able to make outlined earlier, an LVM that estimated energy and water savings if a platform switch from top-loading to concentrates on building laundry the savings are discounted at 7-percent front-loading CCWs without significant equipment will be affected and 3-percent discount rates. Each TSL impacts on equipment development and disproportionately by any energy considered in this rulemaking would capital expenses, along with capacity efficiency regulation regarding CCWs. result in significant energy and water constraints. 74 FR 57738, 57777 (Nov. 9, The LVM’s business is focused mostly savings, and the amount of savings 2009). However, for today’s final rule, on the commercial laundry market increases with higher energy DOE estimates that the energy segment and its total production volume conservation standards. See chapter 11 conservation standard in today’s final is many times lower than its diversified of the TSD for details of the NIA.

TABLE VI.13—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR TOP-LOADING COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS (2013 TO 2043)

Undiscounted Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7% Trial standard level National en- National water National en- National water National en- National water ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion quads gallons quads gallons quads gallons

1 ...... 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 2 ...... 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 3 ...... 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.04 4 ...... 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.04 5 ...... 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.04

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI.14—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR FRONT-LOADING COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS (2013 TO 2043)

Undiscounted 3% Discounted 7% Discounted Trial standard level National en- National water National en- National water National en- National water ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion ergy savings, savings, trillion quads gallons quads gallons quads gallons

1 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 ...... 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 ...... 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 ...... 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 5 ...... 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs returns on real estate and small business can be approximated by the real rate of and Benefits capital as well as corporate capital. DOE return on long-term government debt used this discount rate to approximate (i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus The NPV of customer costs and the opportunity cost of capital in the annual rate of change in the Consumer benefits is a measure of the cumulative private sector, since recent OMB Price Index), which has averaged about impact of energy conservation analysis has found the average rate of 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last standards. In accordance with the return to capital to be near this rate. 30 years. OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis DOE also used the 3-percent rate to Table VI.15 shows the forecasted NPV (OMB Circular A–4, section E, Sept. 17, capture the potential effects of standards at each TSL for CCWs. At both 7-percent 2003), DOE calculated an estimated on private consumption (e.g., through and 3-percent discount rates, TSLs 1 NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- higher prices for equipment and the through 5 show positive cumulative percent real discount rate. The 7-percent purchase of reduced amounts of energy). NPVs. The highest NPV is provided by rate is an estimate of the average before- This rate represents the rate at which TSL 5: $0.51 billion with 7-percent tax rate of return on private capital in society discounts future consumption discount rate, and $1.25 billion with 3- the U.S. economy, and reflects the flows to their present value. This rate percent discount rate.

TABLE VI.15—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS (IMPACTS FOR UNITS SOLD FROM 2013 TO 2043)

NPV, billion 2008$

TSL Top-loading Front-loading Total 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount rate rate rate rate rate rate

1 ...... 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 2 ...... 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.10 3 ...... 0.34 0.86 0.01 0.03 0.36 0.89 4 ...... 0.34 0.86 0.07 0.17 0.41 1.03 5 ...... 0.34 0.86 0.17 0.39 0.51 1.25

c. Impacts on Employment using BLS data (described in section TABLE VI.16—NET NATIONAL INDIRECT IV.H). In this input/output model, the EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS UNDER COM- In addition to considering the direct spending of the money saved on utility employment impacts for the MERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS bills when more efficient CCWs are manufacturers of equipment covered by deployed is centered in economic Net national this rulemaking (discussed above,) DOE sectors that create more jobs than are change in jobs develops estimates of the indirect TSL in 2043, thou- employment impacts of proposed lost in electric utilities when spending sands standards in the economy in general. As is shifted from electricity to other noted previously, DOE expects energy products and services. As Table VI.16 1 ...... 0.07 conservation standards for CCWs to shows, DOE estimates that net indirect 2 ...... 0.08 reduce energy bills for commercial employment impacts from the 3 ...... 0.46 considered TSLs are likely to be very 4 ...... 0.52 customers, with the resulting net 5 ...... 0.62 savings being redirected to other forms small. Furthermore, neither the BLS of economic activity. The impacts data nor the input/output model DOE 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of concern a variety of businesses not uses include the quality or wage level of Equipment directly involved in the decision to the jobs. make, operate, or pay the utility bills for As indicated in section II.G.1.d of the CCWs. Thus, they are ‘‘indirect.’’ November 2009 SNOPR, the amended To estimate these indirect standards DOE is adopting today will employment impacts, DOE used an not lessen the utility or performance of input/output model of the U.S. economy equipment under consideration in this

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1167

rulemaking. 74 FR 57738, 57745 (Nov. Attorney General in making a improve the reliability of the electricity 9, 2009). determination for the November 2009 system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced 5. Impact of Any Lessening of SNOPR, DOE provided DOJ with copies Competition of the supplemental notice and the TSD demand, DOE expects the energy for review. The DOJ did not provide a savings from the adopted standards to As discussed in the November 2009 response to the November 2009 SNOPR. eliminate the need for approximately SNOPR, 74 FR 57738, 57779 (Nov. 9, Therefore, DOE considers the impact of 0.010 gigawatts (GW) of generating 2009), and in section III.D.1.e of this any lessening of competition for today’s capacity by 2043. preamble, DOE considers any lessening final rule based, in part, on the Attorney The energy savings from the standards of competition likely to result from General’s earlier response, which is standards. The Attorney General for CCWs also produce environmental reprinted at the end of today’s benefits in the form of reduced determines the impact, if any, of any rulemaking. lessening of competition. emissions of air pollutants and DOE carefully considered the 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve greenhouse gases associated with energy determination received from DOJ in Energy production, and with use of fossil fuels response to the October 2008 NOPR, at sites where CCWs are used. Table and accordingly chose efficiency levels Improving the energy efficiency of VI.17 provides DOE’s estimate of for the November 2009 SNOPR that CCWs, where economically justified, cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions appear achievable by all CCW would likely improve the security of the reductions that would result from the manufacturers using existing equipment Nation’s energy system by reducing TSLs considered in this rulemaking. In platforms and technologies. As such, overall demand for energy, potentially the environmental assessment (chapter DOE stated that there should be reducing the Nation’s reliance on 16 of the TSD), DOE reports estimated minimal impact on the CCW market and foreign sources of energy. Reduced annual changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg hence its manufacturers. To assist the electricity demand would also likely emissions attributable to each TSL.

TABLE VI.17—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS (IN 2013 TO 2043)

TSL Emissions 1 2 3 4 5

CO2, Mt ...... 2.36 2.39 5.07 5.66 6.11 NOX, kt ...... 1.43 1.45 3.04 3.39 3.66 Hg, t ...... 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 Mt = million metric tons. kt = thousand metric tons. t = metric tons.

As discussed in section IV.J of this caps. DOE also did not include NOX Table VI.18 presents the estimated final rule, DOE does not report SO2 emissions reduction from power plants wastewater discharge reductions due to emissions reductions from power plants in States subject to CAIR because an the TSLs for CCWs. In chapter 16 of the because there is uncertainty about the energy conservation standard would TSD, DOE reports annual changes in effect of energy conservation standards likely not affect the overall level of NOX wastewater discharge attributable to on the overall level of SO2 emissions in emissions in those States due to the each TSL. the United States due to SO2 emissions emissions caps mandated by CAIR.

TABLE VI.18—CUMULATIVE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REDUCTIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS [For 2013ƒ2043]

TSL 1 2 3 4 5

Wastewater Discharge Reduction, trillion gallons ...... 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.21

As discussed in section IV.J of this DOE used values based on a social cost expected to result from amended final rule, DOE estimated the of carbon of approximately $5, $10, $20, standards for CCWs in 2013–2043, DOE cumulative monetary value of the $34 and $56 per metric ton avoided in escalated the above values for 2007 economic benefits associated with CO2 2007 (values expressed in 2008$). DOE using a 3-percent escalation rate. Table emissions reductions expected to result also calculated the domestic benefits VI.19 and Table VI.20 present the from amended standards for CCWs. In based on a value of approximately $1 cumulative monetary value for each TSL considering the potential global benefits per metric ton avoided in 2007. To using 7-percent and 3-percent discount resulting from reduced CO2 emissions, value the CO2 emissions reductions rates, respectively.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1168 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI.19—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2008$ * Estimated cumulative Domestic Global TSL CO2 emis- sion reduc- CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value tions, Mt $1/metric $5/metric $10/metric $20/metric $34/metric $56/metric ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2

1 ...... 2.36 1 6 12 22 39 65 2 ...... 2.39 1 6 12 23 40 66 3 ...... 5.07 3 13 25 48 84 140 4 ...... 5.66 3 14 28 54 93 156 5 ...... 6.11 3 15 31 58 101 168 * Unit values are approximate and are based on escalating 2007$ to 2008$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice.

TABLE VI.20—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Value of CO2 emission reductions, million 2008$* Estimated cumulative Domestic Global TSL CO2 emis- sion reduc- CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value CO2 Value tions, Mt $1/metric $5/metric $10/metric $20/metric $34/metric $56/metric ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2 ton CO2

1 ...... 2.36 3 13 26 49 84 141 2 ...... 2.39 3 13 26 49 86 143 3 ...... 5.07 6 28 55 105 182 303 4 ...... 5.66 7 31 61 117 202 337 5 ...... 6.11 8 33 66 126 219 364 * Unit values are approximate and are based on escalating 2007$ to 2008$ for consistency with other values presented in this notice.

DOE is well aware that scientific and reductions in CO2 and other GHG DOE also estimated a range for the economic knowledge about the emissions. This ongoing review will cumulative monetary value of the contribution of CO2 and other GHG consider the comments on this subject economic benefits associated with NOX emissions to changes in the future that are part of the public record for this and Hg emissions reductions global climate and the potential and other rulemakings, as well as other anticipated to result from amended resulting damages to the world economy methodological assumptions and issues. standards for CCWs. The dollar per ton continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any However, consistent with DOE’s legal values that DOE used are discussed in value placed in this rulemaking on obligations, and taking into account the section IV.J of this final rule. Table reducing CO2 emissions is subject to uncertainty involved with this VI.21 and Table VI.22 present the change. DOE, together with other particular issue, DOE has included in estimates calculated using 7-percent and Federal agencies, will continue to this rule the most recent values and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. review various methodologies for analyses resulting from the ongoing estimating the monetary value of interagency review process.

TABLE VI.21—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Cumulative NOX Cumulative Hg Value of Hg emission Commercial clothes washer TSL emission reduc- Value of NOX emission reductions, emission reduc- reductions, million tions, kt million 2008$ tions, t 2008$

1 ...... 1.43 0.19 to 1.96 ...... 0.0002 0.00 to 0.03. 2 ...... 1.45 0.19 to 1.99 ...... 0.0002 0.00 to 0.03. 3 ...... 3.04 0.41 to 4.17 ...... 0.0003 0.00 to 0.06. 4 ...... 3.39 0.45 to 4.64 ...... 0.0004 0.00 to 0.07. 5 ...... 3.66 0.49 to 5.01 ...... 0.0004 0.00 to 0.08.

TABLE VI.22—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Cumulative NOX Value of NO Cumulative Hg Value of Hg emission Commercial clothes washer TSL emission reduc- X emission reductions, emission reduc- reductions, million tions, kt million 2008$ tions, t 2008$

1 ...... 1.43 0.38 to 3.92 ...... 0.0002 0.00 to 0.03.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1169

TABLE VI.22—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND HG EMISSIONS UNDER COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE—Continued

Cumulative NOX Cumulative Hg Value of Hg emission Commercial clothes washer TSL emission reduc- Value of NOX emission reductions, emission reduc- reductions, million tions, kt million 2008$ tions, t 2008$

2 ...... 1.45 0.39 to 3.98 ...... 0.0002 0.00 to 0.03. 3 ...... 3.04 0.81 to 8.36 ...... 0.0003 0.00 to 0.06. 4 ...... 3.39 0.91 to 9.31 ...... 0.0004 0.00 to 0.07. 5 ...... 3.66 0.98 to 10.04 ...... 0.0004 0.00 to 0.07.

The NPV of the monetized benefits global benefit values are used for these and emission-related benefits are associated with emissions reductions tables ($5 and $56 in 2008$). performed with different computer can be viewed as a complement to the Although adding the value of models, leading to different time frames NPV of the consumer savings calculated consumer savings to the values of for the analyses. For CCWs, the present for each TSL considered in this emission reductions provides a valuable value of national consumer savings is rulemaking. Table VI.23 presents the perspective, please note the following: measured for the period in which units NPV values for CCWs that would result (1) The national consumer savings are shipped from 2013 to 2043 continue to if DOE were to add the low-end and domestic U.S. consumer monetary operate. However, the time frames of the high-end estimates of the potential savings found in market transactions, benefits associated with the emission benefits resulting from reduced CO2, while the values of emissions reductions differ. For example, the NO , and Hg emissions to the NPV of reductions are based on ranges of X value of CO emissions reductions is consumer savings calculated for each estimates of imputed marginal social 2 meant to reflect the present value of all TSL considered in this rulemaking, at costs, which, in the case of CO2, are both a 7-percent and 3-percent discount meant to reflect global benefits; and (2) future climate-related impacts, even those beyond 2065. rate. For CO2, only the low and high the assessments of consumer savings

TABLE VI.23—ESTIMATES OF ADDING NPV OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO NPV OF LOW- AND HIGH-END GLOBAL MONE- TIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2, NOX, AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TSLS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

CO2 Value of CO2 Value of $56/metric ton CO2 * and high values $5/metric ton for NOX and Hg *** billion 2008$ TSL CO2 * and low values for NOX and Hg ** billion 7-percent 3-percent 7-percent 2008$ discount rate discount rate discount rate

1 ...... 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.22 2 ...... 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.25 3 ...... 0.37 0.92 0.50 1.20 4 ...... 0.42 1.06 0.57 1.38 5 ...... 0.53 1.28 0.68 1.62

* These values per ton represent the global negative externalities of CO2. ** Low Values correspond to $442 per ton of NOX emissions and $0.745 million per ton of Hg emissions. *** High Values correspond to $4,540 per ton of NOX emissions and $33.3 million per ton of Hg emissions.

7. Other Factors and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) As 6316(a)) EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, stated above, in determining whether a In selecting today’s energy in determining whether a standard is standard is economically justified, the conservation standards for CCWs, DOE economically justified, to consider any Secretary must determine whether the started by examining the maximum other factors that the Secretary deems to benefits of the standards exceed its technologically feasible levels, and be relevant. (42 U.S.C. burdens considering the seven factors determined whether those levels were 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) In economically justified. If DOE adopting today’s amended standards, discussed in section II.B. A determination of whether a standard determined that the maximum the Secretary found no relevant factors technologically feasible level was not level is economically justified is not other than those identified elsewhere in justified, DOE then analyzed the next made based on any one of these factors today’s final rule. lower TSL to determine whether that in isolation. The Secretary must weigh D. Conclusion level was economically justified. DOE each of these seven factors in total in repeated this procedure until it EPCA contains criteria for prescribing determining whether a standard is identified an economically justified new or amended energy conservation economically justified. Further, the TSL. standards. It provides that any such Secretary may not establish an amended To aid the reader in understanding standard for CCWs must be designed to standard if such standard would not the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, achieve the maximum improvement in result in ‘‘significant conservation of Table VI.24 summarizes the quantitative energy efficiency that the Secretary energy,’’ or ‘‘is not technologically analytical results for each TSL, based on determines is technologically feasible feasible or economically justified.’’ (42 the assumptions and methodology

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1170 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

discussed above. These tables present DOE used to estimate manufacturer In sum, today’s standard levels for the the results—or, in some cases, a range impacts. equipment that is the subject of this of results—for each TSL. The range of In addition to the quantitative results, rulemaking reflect DOE’s careful values reported in these tables for DOE also considers other burdens and balancing of the relevant statutory industry impacts represents the results benefits that affect economic factors under EPCA. for the different markup scenarios that justification.

TABLE VI.24—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Primary Energy Saved, quads ...... 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.12 7% Discount Rate ...... 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 3% Discount Rate ...... 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07 Primary Water Saved, trillion gallons ...... 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.21 7% Discount Rate ...... 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.06 3% Discount Rate ...... 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.11 Generation Capacity Reduction, gigawatts ** ...... 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.011 0.012 NPV of Customer Benefit, 2008$ billion: 7% Discount Rate ...... 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.41 0.51 3% Discount Rate ...... 0.08 0.10 0.89 1.03 1.25 Industry Impacts: Industry NPV, 2008$ million ...... 4–3 1–0 (5)–(7) (8)–(10) (20)–(23) Industry NPV, % change ...... 6.0–4.5 2.2–0.8 (7.8)–(11.4) (12.7)–(16.6) (33.1)–(37.3) Emissions Impacts: † CO2, Mt ...... 2.36 2.39 5.07 5.66 6.11 NOX, kt ...... 1.43 1.45 3.04 3.39 3.66 Hg, t ...... 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 Value of Emission Reductions: CO2, 2008$ million:†† 7% Discount Rate ...... 6–65 6–66 13–140 14–156 15–168 3% Discount Rate ...... 13–141 13–143 28–303 31–337 33–364 NOX, 2008$ million: 7% Discount Rate ...... 0.2–2.0 0.2–2.0 0.4–4.2 0.5–4.6 0.5–5.0 3% Discount Rate ...... 0.4–3.9 0.4–4.0 0.8–8.4 0.9–9.3 1.0–10.0 Hg, 2008$ million: 7% Discount Rate ...... 0.00–0.03 0.00–0.03 0.00–0.06 0.00–0.07 0.00–0.08 3% Discount Rate ...... 0.00–0.03 0.00–0.03 0.00–0.06 0.00–0.07 0.00–0.07 Wastewater Discharge Impacts, trillion gallons ...... 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.21 Mean LCC Savings,* 2008$: Top-Loading, Multi-Family...... (8.1) (8.1) 179 179 179 Top-Loading, Laundromat...... (17.7) (17.7) 190 190 190 Front-Loading, Multi-Family ...... 4.7 19.5 19.5 91 203 Front-Loading, Laundromat ...... 5.2 22.0 22.0 93 216 Median PBP, years: Top-Loading, Multi-Family...... 11.7 11.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 Top-Loading, Laundromat...... 7.9 7.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 Front-Loading, Multi-Family...... 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.0 2.9 Front-Loading, Laundromat...... 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.6 LCC Customer Impacts: Top-Loading: Multi-Family: Net Cost, % ...... 43.3 43.3 13.8 13.8 13.8 No Impact, % ...... 35.3 35.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 Net Benefit, % ...... 21.5 21.5 85.0 85.0 85.0 Laundromat: Net Cost, % ...... 51.4 51.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 No Impact, % ...... 35.3 35.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 Net Benefit, % ...... 13.3 13.3 95.9 95.9 95.9 Front-Loading: Multi-Family: Net Cost, % ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 No Impact, % ...... 96.3 96.3 96.3 23.1 0.0 Net Benefit, % ...... 3.7 3.7 3.7 75.5 98.9 Laundromat: Net Cost, % ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No Impact, % ...... 96.3 96.3 96.3 23.1 0.0 Net Benefit, % ...... 3.7 3.7 3.7 76.9 100.0 * Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. ** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2043 based on AEO 2009 April Release Reference Case. † Emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at buildings where the appliance is being used. †† Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions based on global estimates of the benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1171

First, DOE considered TSL 5, the max- Although DOE recognizes the maximum technologically feasible tech level. TSL 5 would likely save 0.12 increased economic benefits that could levels. quads of energy and 0.21 trillion gallons result from TSL 5, DOE has concluded After carefully considering the of water through 2043, an amount DOE that the benefits of a standard at TSL 5 analysis and weighing the benefits and considers significant. DOE projects that would be outweighed by the potential burdens of TSL 5, the Secretary has TSL 5 would result in a net increase of for disincentivizing customers from reached the following conclusion: At $0.51 billion in NPV of customer purchasing more efficient front-loading TSL 5, the benefits of energy savings, benefits using a discount rate of 7 CCWs. At TSL 5, front-loading CCWs economic benefit, and emissions percent, and of $1.25 billion using a are highly efficient but have a purchase reductions would be outweighed by the discount rate of 3 percent. The price estimated to be $497 more potential for giving customers less emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 6.11 expensive than top-loading CCWs. With incentive to purchase high efficiency Mt of CO2, 3.66 kt of NOX, and 0.0004 such a large price differential between front-loading CCWs and the large capital t of Hg. At TSL 5, the estimated benefit the two types of CCWs, and with less conversion costs that could result in a of reducing CO2 emissions based on than 2 percent of the front-loading substantial reduction in INPV for global estimates of the value of CO2 market at TSL 5, DOE is concerned that manufacturers. ranges from $15 million to $168 million significant numbers of potential Next, DOE considered TSL 4. TSL 4 at a 7-percent discount rate, and $33 customers of front-loading CCWs would would likely save 0.11 quads of energy million to $364 million at a 3-percent choose to purchase a less efficient top- and 0.16 trillion gallons of water discount rate. Total generating capacity loading unit. through 2043, an amount DOE considers in 2043 is estimated to decrease As described in section IV.E.2.c, DOE significant. DOE projects that TSL 4 compared to the reference case by 0.012 did analyze the impacts of increased would result in a net increase of $0.41 GW under TSL 5. purchase prices for each equipment billion in NPV of customer benefits At TSL 5, DOE projects that the class, but considered each using a discount rate of 7 percent, and average top-loading CCW customer independently of the other. Because the of $1.03 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The emissions reductions at would experience a decrease in LCC of price impacts for more efficient top- TSL 4 are 5.66 Mt of CO , 3.39 kt of $179 in multi-family applications and loaders are higher than those for more 2 NO , and 0.0004 t of Hg. At TSL 4, the $190 in laundromats. DOE also efficient front-loaders, DOE estimated X estimated benefits of reducing CO estimates an LCC decrease for an that top-loading CCW sales would 2 emissions based on global estimates of overwhelming majority of customers decrease slightly more rapidly than for the value of CO ranges from $14 that purchase top-loading CCWs—85 front-loaders. But DOE did not have 2 million to $156 million at a 7-percent percent of customers in multi-family sufficient data to estimate the cross- discount rate and $31 million to $337 applications and 96 percent of price elasticity of demand between the million at a 3-percent discount rate. customers in laundromats. The median two equipment classes to determine the Total generating capacity in 2043 is PBP of the average consumer at TSL 5 extent to which customers of front- estimated to decrease compared to the in multi-family applications and in loadings CCWs would switch to less reference case by 0.011 GW under TSL laundromats is projected to be 4.6 years expensive top-loaders. 4. and 2.8 years, respectively. If potential front-loading CCW At TSL 4, top-loading CCWs have the At TSL 5, DOE projects that the customers did decide to switch to less same efficiency as at TSL 5. Therefore, average front-loading CCW consumer expensive top-loading washers, the NES top-loading CCW customers will would experience a decrease in LCC of and NPV realized from TSL 5 would be experience the same LCC impacts and $203 in multi-family applications and diminished. DOE notes that in PBPs as TSL 5. At TSL 4 for front- $216 in laundromats. DOE also developing the energy savings and water loading CCWs, DOE projects that the estimates an LCC decrease for an savings estimates for TSL 5, it average front-loading CCW consumer overwhelming majority of customers effectively held constant the ratio of would experience a decrease in LCC of that purchase front-loading CCWs—99 front-loading to top-loading CCW $91 in multi-family applications and percent of customers in multi-family shipments across the various TSLs. $93 in laundromats. DOE also estimates applications and 100 percent of Particularly at TSL 3 to TSL 5, the an LCC decrease for an overwhelming customers in laundromats. The median differences in these estimates are small, majority of customers that purchase PBP of the average consumer at TSL 5 especially at a 7-percent discount rate. front-loading CCWs—76 percent of in multi-family applications and in DOE believes that the values in Table customers in multi-family applications laundromats is projected to be 2.9 years VI.24 represent the high end of the and 77 percent of customers in and 1.6 years, respectively. potential energy and water savings for laundromats. The median PBP of the At TSL 5, DOE estimated the these TSLs. Taking into account cross- average consumer at TSL 4 in multi- projected change in INPV ranges from a price elasticity of demand could affect family applications and in laundromats total decrease of $20.4 million for both the anticipated energy and water is projected to be 3.0 years and 1.8 equipment classes to a total decrease of savings of the various TSLs, and it could years, respectively. $23.0 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes potentially result in a change in the TSL DOE estimated the projected change the risk of very large negative impacts with the highest projected energy/water in INPV ranges from a decrease of $7.8 if manufacturers’ expectations about savings level. million to a decrease of $10.2 million. reduced shipments are realized. TSL 5 In addition, TSL 5 would adversely At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of could result in a net loss as high as 37.3 impact manufacturers’ INPV to a very large negative impacts if percent in INPV to CCW manufacturers. significant extent. Not only does the manufacturers’ expectations about Also, DOE is especially sensitive to the industry face a potential significant loss reduced shipments are realized. TSL 4 potentially severe impacts to the LVM of in industry INPV, but manufacturers could result in a net loss as high as 16.6 CCWs. Because the LVM’s clothes would also need to make significant percent in INPV to CCW manufacturers. washer revenue is so dependent on capital investments for both types of Also, DOE is especially sensitive to the CCW sales, DOE is concerned that TSL CCWs in order to produce both top- potentially severe impacts to the LVM. 5 will cause material harm to the LVM. loading and front-loading washers at the Since the LVM’s clothes washer revenue

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

is so dependent on CCW sales, DOE is through 2043, an amount DOE considers incentive to purchase more efficient concerned that TSL 4 will materially significant. DOE projects that TSL 3 front-loading washers, but at TSL 3, the harm the LVM. would result in a net increase of $0.36 price difference between front-loading Although DOE recognizes the billion in NPV of customer benefits and top-loading CCWs drops to $414. increased economic benefits that could using a discount rate of 7 percent, and Given that DOE projects that the average result from TSL 4, DOE has the same of $0.89 billion using a discount rate of front-loading CCW consumer would concerns regarding TSL 4 as for TSL 5. 3 percent. The emissions reductions at experience an LCC savings at TSL 3, Namely, DOE has concerns as to the TSL 3 are 5.07 Mt of CO2, 3.04 kt of DOE believes that most front-loading potential of TSL 4 to give customers less NOX, and 0.0003 t of Hg. The estimated CCW customers not already purchasing incentive to purchase more efficient benefits of reducing CO2 emissions washers at TSL 3 would likely continue front-loading washers. At TSL 4, front- based on global estimates of the value of to purchase a front-loading unit if loading CCWs are highly efficient but CO2 ranges from $13 million to $140 standards are set at TSL 3. DOE notes have a purchase price estimated to be million at a 7-percent discount rate, and that TSL 3 adversely impacts $454 more expensive than top-loading $28 million to $303 million at a 3- manufacturers’ INPV, but because such washers. With such a price differential percent discount rate. Total generating a large percentage of the front-loading between the two types of CCWs, and capacity in 2043 is estimated to market is already at TSL 3, with less than 4 percent of the front- decrease compared to the reference case manufacturers would likely not need to loading market currently meeting TSL 4, by 0.010 GW under TSL 3. make significant capital investments for DOE is concerned that a significant At TSL 3, top-loading CCWs have the front-loading CCWs. Product number of potential customers of front- same efficiency as at TSL 5. Therefore, development and conversion expenses loading CCWs would be more likely to top-loading CCW customers would and capital investments would only be purchase a top-loading CCW, which is experience the same LCC impacts and required in order to produce higher less efficient. If potential front-loading PBPs as TSL 5. At TSL 3 for front- efficiency top-loading washers at TSL 3. CCW customers did decide to switch to loading CCWs, DOE projects that the top-loading models, the NES and NPV average front-loading CCW consumer After considering the analysis and realized from TSL 4 would be would experience a decrease in LCC of weighing the benefits and the burdens, diminished. $19 in multi-family applications and DOE has concluded that the benefits of In addition, TSL 4 would adversely $22 in laundromats. DOE also estimates a TSL 3 standard outweigh the burdens. impact manufacturers’ INPV to a an LCC decrease for all customers that In particular, the Secretary has significant extent. Not only does the do not already purchase front-loading concluded that TSL 3 saves a significant industry face a potential loss in industry CCWs with an efficiency meeting TSL 3. amount of energy and is technologically INPV, but manufacturers would also The median PBP of the average feasible and economically justified. need to make significant capital consumer at TSL 3 in multi-family Further, benefits from carbon dioxide investments for both types of CCWs in applications and in laundromats is reductions (at a central value of $20) order to produce both top-loading projected to be 0.4 years and 0.2 years, would increase NPV by $48 million washers at the maximum respectively. (2008$) at a 7% discount rate and $105 technologically feasible level and front- DOE estimated the projected change million at a 3% discount rate. These loading washers at a level which only 3 in INPV ranges from a decrease of $4.8 benefits from carbon dioxide emission percent of the market currently meets. million to a decrease of $7.0 million. At reductions, when considered in After carefully considering the TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of very conjunction with the consumer savings analysis and weighing the benefits and large negative impacts if manufacturers’ NPV and other factors described above burdens of TSL 4, the Secretary has expectations about reduced shipments support DOE’s conclusion that TSL 3 is reached the following conclusion: At are realized. TSL 3 could result in a net economically justified. Therefore, DOE TSL 4, the benefits of energy savings, loss as high as 11.4 percent in INPV to establishes TSL 3 as the energy economic benefit, and emissions CCW manufacturers. Also, DOE is conservation standards for CCWs in this reductions would be outweighed by the especially sensitive to the potential final rule. Table VI.25 lists today’s potential for giving customers less adverse impacts to the LVM. Since the energy conservation standards for incentive to purchase high efficiency LVM’s clothes washer revenue is so CCWs. DOE’s amended energy front-loading CCWs and the large capital dependent on CCW sales, DOE is conservation standards for CCWs at TSL conversion costs that could result in a concerned that TSL 3 could 3 reflect its conclusion that this substantial reduction in INPV for disproportionately impact the LVM. standard level would minimize the manufacturers. DOE recognizes the increased potential adverse impacts on the LVM Next, DOE considered TSL 3. TSL 3 economic benefits that could result from and, therefore, would also minimize the would likely save 0.10 quads of energy TSL 3. DOE still has concerns of the adverse impacts on CCW market and 0.14 trillion gallons of water potential for giving customers less competition.

TABLE VI.25—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Equipment class Amended energy conservation standards

Top-Loading ...... 1.60 Modified Energy Factor/8.5 Water Factor. Front-Loading ...... 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor.

DOE also calculated the annualized operating cost savings, consumer the monetary value of CO2 emissions values for certain benefits and costs incremental product and installation reductions (using a value of $20/t CO2, under the considered TSLs. The costs, the quantity of emissions which is in the middle of the values annualized values refer to consumer reductions for CO2, NOX, and Hg, and considered by DOE for valuing the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1173

potential global benefits resulting from Although DOE calculated annualized with the value of CO2 reductions reduced CO2 emissions). values, this does not imply that the provides a valuable perspective, please DOE used a two-step calculation time-series of cost and benefits from note the following. The operating cost process to convert the time-series of which the annualized values were savings are domestic U.S. consumer costs and benefits into annualized determined are a steady stream of monetary savings found in market values. First, DOE calculated a present payments. transactions while the CO2 value is value for the time-series of costs and Table VI.26 presents the annualized based on an estimate of imputed benefits using a discount rate of either values for each TSL considered for marginal SCC, which is meant to reflect 3 or 7 percent. From the present value, CCWs. The tables also present the the global benefits of CO reductions. In DOE then calculated the fixed annual annualized net benefit resulting from 2 addition, the SCC value considers a payment over the analysis time period summing the two monetary benefits and (2013 to 2043) that yielded the same subtracting the consumer incremental longer time frame than the period present value. The fixed annual product and installation costs. Although considered for operating cost savings. payment is the annualized value. summing the value of operating savings

TABLE VI.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate (AEO reference (AEO low (high TSL Category Unit case) growth case) growth case) 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3%

1 ...... Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings ... Million 2008$ ...... 12 .75 15 .32 11 .25 13 .46 14.63 17 .70 Quantified Emissions Reductions ...... CO2, Mt ...... 0.07 0 .07 0.07 0.07 0 .07 0.07 NOX, kt ...... 0.041 0.044 0.041 0 .044 0 .041 0.044 Hg, t ...... 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 .000 Monetized Avoided CO2 Value (at Million 2008$ ...... 2 .35 2.73 2.35 2 .73 2.35 2 .73 $20/t).

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 11 .44 11.06 10 .67 10 .19 12 .01 11 .65 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 3 .66 6.99 2.93 6 .01 4.97 8 .79

2 ...... Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings ... Million 2008$ ...... 13 .98 16 .79 12 .43 14 .86 15.90 19 .23 Quantified Emissions Reductions ...... CO2, Mt ...... 0.07 0 .07 0.07 0.07 0 .07 0.07 NOX, kt ...... 0.042 0.045 0.042 0 .045 0 .042 0.045 Hg, t ...... 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 .000 Monetized Avoided CO2 Value (at Million 2008$ ...... 2 .38 2.77 2.38 2 .77 2.38 2 .77 $20/t).

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 11 .49 11.11 10 .72 10 .23 12 .06 11 .70 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 4 .87 8.45 4.09 7 .40 6.22 10 .30

3 ...... Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings ... Million 2008$ ...... 60 .62 72 .82 54 .87 65 .33 66.59 80 .43 Quantified Emissions Reductions ...... CO2, Mt ...... 0.14 0 .16 0.14 0.16 0 .14 0.16 NOX, kt ...... 0.087 0.094 0.087 0 .094 0 .087 0.094 Hg, t ...... 0 .001 0 .001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 .001 Monetized Avoided CO2 Value (at Million 2008$ ...... 5 .05 5.88 5.05 5 .88 5.05 5 .88 $20/t).

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 23 .44 22.67 21 .85 20 .87 24 .61 23 .87 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI.26—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL— Continued

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate (AEO reference (AEO low (high TSL Category Unit case) growth case) growth case) 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3%

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 42 .23 56 .04 38 .07 50.34 47 .04 62 .44

4 ...... Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings ... Million 2008$ ...... 68 .83 82 .66 62 .65 74 .62 75.33 90 .94 Quantified Emissions Reductions ...... CO2, Mt ...... 0.16 0 .17 0.16 0.17 0 .16 0.17 NOX, kt ...... 0.097 0.105 0.097 0 .105 0 .097 0.105 Hg, t ...... 0 .001 0 .001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 .001 Monetized Avoided CO2 Value (at Million 2008$ ...... 5 .63 6.56 5.63 6 .56 5.63 6 .56 $20/t).

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 25 .45 24.62 23 .81 22 .75 26 .67 25 .87 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 49 .01 64 .60 44 .47 58.43 54 .29 71 .63

5 ...... Benefits

Monetized Operating Cost Savings ... Million 2008$ ...... 81 .19 97 .52 74 .46 88 .77 88.24 106 .51 Quantified Emissions Reductions ...... CO2, Mt ...... 0.17 0 .19 0.17 0.19 0 .17 0.19 NOX, kt ...... 0.105 0.113 0.105 0 .113 0 .105 0.113 Hg, t ...... 0 .001 0 .001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 .001 Monetized Avoided CO2 Value (at Million 2008$ ...... 6 .08 7.08 6.08 7 .08 6.08 7 .08 $20/t).

Costs

Monetized Incremental Product and Million 2008$ ...... 28 .19 27.26 26 .47 25 .30 29 .47 28 .57 Installation Costs.

Net Benefits

Monetized Value ...... Million 2008$ ...... 59 .08 77 .34 54 .08 70.55 64 .86 85 .02

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the DOE believes that there is a lack of Review Office of Management and Budget for consumer information and/or A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 review the draft final rule and other information processing capability about documents prepared for this energy efficiency opportunities in the Executive Order 12866 requires that rulemaking, including a regulatory CCW market. If this is the case, DOE each agency identify in writing the impact analysis (RIA). These documents would expect the energy efficiency for problem the agency intends to address are included in the rulemaking record CCWs to be randomly distributed across that warrants new agency action and are available for public review in key variables such as energy prices and (including, where applicable, the the Resource Room of the Building usage levels. DOE is not able to correlate failures of private markets or public Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant the consumer’s usage pattern and energy institutions), as well as assess the Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, price with the efficiency of the significance of that problem to 20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. purchased equipment, however. In the determine whether any new regulation and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, October 2008 NOPR, DOE sought data is necessary. Executive Order 12866, except Federal holidays. on the efficiency levels of existing section 1(b)(1). The Executive Order requires each CCWs by how often they are used and Because today’s regulatory action is a their associated energy prices (and/or ‘‘ ’’ agency to identify the problem the significant regulatory action under geographic regions of the country). 73 section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, agency intends to address that warrants FR 62034, 62123 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order new agency action (including, where received no such data from interested requires DOE to prepare and submit for applicable, the failures of private review to the Office of Information and markets or public institutions), as well parties. Therefore, DOE was unable to Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB an as to assess the significance of that test for today’s final rule the extent to assessment of the costs and benefits of problem in evaluating whether any new which purchasers of CCWs behave as if today’s rule. Accordingly, DOE regulation is warranted. E.O. 12866, they lack information about the costs presented to the Office of Information section 1(b)(1). associated with CCW energy

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1175

consumption and/or the benefits of monetary benefit in determining the regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison more-efficient equipment. economic feasibility of the TSLs. of the impacts of the alternatives; and In addition, this rulemaking addresses The November 2009 SNOPR (4) the national economic impacts of the problem that certain external contained a summary of the RIA, which today’s standards. benefits resulting from improved energy evaluated the extent to which major As shown in Table VII.1 below, DOE efficiency of CCWs are not captured by alternatives to standards for CCWs identified the following major policy the users of such equipment and thus could achieve significant energy savings alternatives for achieving increased may not play a role in their purchase at reasonable cost, as compared to the energy efficiency in CCWs: decisions. These benefits include effectiveness of the proposed rule. The (1) No new regulatory action; externalities related to environmental complete RIA (Regulatory Impact (2) Financial incentives; protection and energy security, such as Analysis for Proposed Energy (3) Consumer rebates; reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Conservation Standards for Commercial (4) Consumer tax credits; The TSLs that DOE evaluated resulted Clothes Washers) is contained in the (5) Manufacturer tax credits; in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions TSD prepared for today’s rule. The RIA (6) Voluntary energy efficiency reductions. DOE also determined a consists of (1) a statement of the targets; range of possible monetary benefits problem addressed by this regulation, (7) Bulk government purchases; associated with the emissions and the mandate for government action; (8) Early replacement; and reductions. DOE considered both the (2) a description and analysis of the (9) Today’s approach (national emissions reductions and their possible feasible policy alternatives to this performance standards).

TABLE VII.1—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER STANDARDS

Net present value** Water billion 2008$ Energy savings, Policy alternatives savings,* trillion 7% 3% quads gallons Discount Discount rate rate

No New Regulatory Action ...... 0 0 0 0 Consumer Rebates ...... 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.47 Consumer Tax Credits ...... 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 Manufacturer Tax Credits ...... 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets *** ...... 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.15 Early Replacement ...... 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.17 Bulk Government Purchases *** ...... 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 Today’s Standards at TSL 3 ...... 0.10 0.14 0.36 0.89 * Energy savings are in source quads. ** DOE determined the net present value for shipments in 2013–2043. *** Voluntary energy efficiency target and bulk government purchase alternatives are not considered for front-loading washers because the per- centage of the market at TSL 3 is well over the market adoption target level that each alternative strives to attain.

The net present value amounts shown B. Review Under the Regulatory rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE in Table VII.1 refer to the NPV for CCW Flexibility Act has made its procedures and policies consumers. The costs to the government The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 available on the Office of General of each policy (such as rebates or tax U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation Counsel’s Web site: http:// credits) are not included in the costs for of an initial regulatory flexibility www.gc.doe.gov. the NPV since, on balance, consumers analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law For the manufacturers of equipment would be both paying for (through must be proposed for public comment, covered by this rulemaking, the SBA has taxes) and receiving the benefits of the and a final regulatory flexibility analysis set two size thresholds that define payments. As explained in detail in (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency which entities are ‘‘small businesses’’ for section VI of the November 2009 adopts as a final rule, unless the agency the purposes of the statute. See http:// SNOPR, none of the alternatives DOE certifies that the rule, if promulgated, www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/ _ examined would save as much energy or will not have a significant economic documents/sba homepage/ _ _ have an NPV as high as the proposed impact on a substantial number of small serv sstd tablepdf.pdf. Because all CCW standards. The same conclusion applies entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis manufacturers also produce RCWs, to the standards in today’s rule. Also, examines the impact of the rule on limits for both categories are presented several of the alternatives would require small entities and considers alternative in Table VII.2. DOE used these small ways of reducing negative impacts. business definitions to determine new enabling legislation, because DOE Also, as required by Executive Order whether any small entities would be does not have authority to implement 13272, Proper Consideration of Small required to comply with the rule. (65 FR those alternatives. Additional detail on Entities in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as the regulatory alternatives is found in 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 the RIA chapter in the TSD. procedures and policies on February 19, (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 2003, to ensure that the potential CFR Part 121.) The size standards are impacts of its rules on small entities are listed by NAICS code and industry properly considered during the description.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VII.2—SBA AND NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS RULE

Industry description Revenue limit Employee limit NAICS

Residential Laundry Equipment Manufacturing ...... N/A ...... 1,000 335224 Commercial Laundry Equipment Manufacturing ...... N/A ...... 500 333312

As explained in the November 2009 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 guidelines issued by the Attorney SNOPR, the CCW industry consists of DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order three principal competitors that make Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 12988 requires Executive agencies to up almost 100 percent of the market FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), which imposes review regulations in light of applicable share. Two of them are high-volume, certain requirements on agencies standards in section 3(a) and section diversified appliance manufacturers, formulating and implementing policies 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or while the third is a focused laundry or regulations that preempt State law or more of them. DOE has completed the equipment manufacturer. Before issuing that have Federalism implications. In required review and determined that, to November 2009 SNOPR, DOE accordance with DOE’s statement of the extent permitted by law, today’s interviewed all major CCW policy describing the intergovernmental final regulations meet the relevant manufacturers. Because all CCW consultation process it will follow in the standards of Executive Order 12988. manufacturers also make RCWs, DOE development of regulations that have also considered whether a CCW federalism implications, 65 FR 13735 G. Review Under the Unfunded manufacturer could be considered a (March 14, 2000), DOE examined the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 small business entity in that industry. November 2009 proposed rule and As indicated in the November 2009 None of the CCW manufacturers fall determined that it would not have a SNOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed into any small business category. As a substantial direct effect on the States, on rule under title II of the Unfunded result, DOE certifies that today’s final the relationship between the national Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. rule will not have a significant impact government and the States, or on the 104–4) (UMRA), which imposes on a substantial number of small entities distribution of power and requirements on Federal agencies when and that a regulatory flexibility analysis responsibilities among the various their regulatory actions will have certain is not required. levels of government. 74 FR 57738, types of impacts on State, local and 57798 (Nov. 9, 2009). DOE received no Tribal governments and the private C. Review Under the Paperwork comments on this issue in response to Reduction Act sector. 74 FR 57738, 57798–99 (Nov. 9, the November 2009 SNOPR, and its 2009). For a proposed regulatory action DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR conclusions on this issue are the same likely to result in a rule that may cause that this rulemaking would impose no for the final rule as they were for the the expenditure by State, local, and new information and recordkeeping proposed rule. Therefore, DOE has taken Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or requirements, and that OMB clearance no further action in today’s final rule by the private sector of $100 million or is not required under the Paperwork with respect to Executive Order 13132. more in any one year (adjusted for Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 73 FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). an agency to publish a written statement With respect to the review of existing DOE received no comments on this in assessing the costs, benefits, and other regulations and the promulgation of response to the October 2008 NOPR or effects of the rule on the national new regulations, section 3(a) of the November 2009 SNOPR, and, as economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice with the proposed rule, today’s final UMRA also requires a Federal agency to Reform’’ (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)) rule imposes no information and develop an effective process to permit imposes on Federal agencies the general recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, timely input by elected officers of State, duty to adhere to the following DOE has taken no further action in this local, and Tribal governments on a requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting rulemaking with respect to the proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental errors and ambiguity; (2) write ’’ Paperwork Reduction Act. mandate, and requires an agency plan regulations to minimize litigation; and for giving notice and opportunity for D. Review Under the National (3) provide a clear legal standard for timely input to potentially affected Environmental Policy Act affected conduct rather than a general small governments before establishing standard and promote simplification any requirements that might DOE prepared an environmental and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of significantly or uniquely affect small assessment of the impacts of today’s Executive Order 12988 specifically governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE standards which it published as chapter requires that Executive agencies make published a statement of policy on its 16 within the TSD for the final rule. every reasonable effort to ensure that the process for intergovernmental DOE found the environmental effects regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the consultation under UMRA (62 FR associated with today’s various standard preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 12820) (also available at http:// levels for CCWs to be insignificant. specifies any effect on existing Federal www.gc.doe.gov). Although today’s final Therefore, DOE is issuing a FONSI law or regulation; (3) provides a clear rule does not contain a Federal pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et legal standard for affected conduct intergovernmental mandate, it may seq.), the regulations of the Council on while promoting simplification and impose expenditures of $100 million or Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts burden reduction; (4) specifies the more on the private sector, although 1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately DOE believes such expenditures are compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part defines key terms; and (6) addresses likely to be less than $50 million. 1021). The FONSI is available in the other important issues affecting clarity Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an docket for this rulemaking. and general draftsmanship under any agency to respond to the content

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1177

requirements of UMRA in any other has taken no further action in today’s Government. As indicated in the statement or analysis that accompanies final rule with respect to this Executive November 2009 SNOPR, this includes the supplemental notice. 2 U.S.C. Order. influential scientific information related 1532(c). The content requirements of to agency regulatory actions, such as the J. Review Under the Treasury and section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a analyses in this rulemaking. 74 FR General Government Appropriations private sector mandate substantially Act, 2001 57738, 57799 (Nov. 9, 2009). overlap the economic analysis As more fully set forth in the requirements that apply under section Section 515 of the Treasury and November 2009 SNOPR, DOE held 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order General Government Appropriations formal in-progress peer reviews of the 12866. The Supplementary Information Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides types of analyses and processes that section of this supplemental notice and for agencies to review most DOE has used to develop the energy the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ disseminations of information to the conservation standards in today’s rule, section of the SNOPR TSD respond to public under guidelines established by and issued a report on these peer those requirements. each agency pursuant to general reviews. The report is available at Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ obligated to identify and consider a guidelines were published at 67 FR appliance_standards/peer_review.html. reasonable number of regulatory 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s Id. alternatives before promulgating a rule guidelines were published at 67 FR for which a written statement under 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed M. Congressional Notification section 202 is required. DOE is required today’s final rule under the OMB and As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will to select from those alternatives the DOE guidelines and has concluded that submit to Congress a report regarding most cost-effective and least it is consistent with applicable policies the issuance of today’s final rule prior burdensome alternative that achieves in those guidelines. to the effective date set forth at the the objectives of the rule unless DOE K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 outset of this notice. The report will publishes an explanation for doing state that it has been determined that ‘‘ otherwise or the selection of such an Executive Order 13211, Actions the rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by Concerning Regulations That alternative is inconsistent with law. As 5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE also will submit Significantly Affect Energy Supply, required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), the supporting analyses to the Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 6313(e), and 6316(a), today’s final rule Comptroller General in the U.S. 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to would establish energy conservation Government Accountability Office prepare and submit to the OIRA a standards for CCWs that are designed to (GAO) and make them available to each Statement of Energy Effects for any achieve the maximum improvement in House of Congress. energy efficiency that DOE has significant energy action. For the determined to be both technologically October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined VIII. Approval of the Office of the feasible and economically justified. A that the proposed rule, which set energy Secretary full discussion of the alternatives conservation standards for commercial The Secretary of Energy has approved considered by DOE is presented in the clothes washers, was not a ‘‘significant publication of today’s final rule. ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of energy action’’ within the meaning of the TSD for today’s final rule. Executive Order 13211. 73 FR 62034, List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 62132 (Oct. 17, 2008). The rule was also Administrative practice and H. Review Under the Treasury and not designated as such by OIRA. General Government Appropriations procedure, Energy conservation, Accordingly, it did not prepare a Household appliances. Act, 1999 Statement of Energy Effects on that DOE determined that, for this proposed rule. DOE received no Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2009. rulemaking, it need not prepare a comments on this issue in response to Family Policymaking Assessment under the October 2008 NOPR. As with the Cathy Zoi, section 654 of the Treasury and General October 2008 NOPR, DOE has Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Government Appropriations Act, 1999 concluded that today’s final rule is not Renewable Energy. (Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no a significant energy action within the ■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, comments concerning section 654 in meaning of Executive Order 13211, and chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of response to the November 2009 SNOPR, OIRA has not designated the rule as the Code of Federal Regulations, part and, therefore, takes no further action in such. As a result, DOE has not prepared 431 is amended to read as set forth today’s final rule with respect to this a Statement of Energy Effects on the below: provision. final rule. PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 L. Review Under the Information PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN DOE determined, under Executive Quality Bulletin for Peer Review COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in EQUIPMENT and Interference with Constitutionally consultation with the Office of Science ■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 ’’ Protected Property Rights, 53 FR 8859 and Technology, issued its Final continues to read as follows: (March 18, 1988), that today’s rule Information Quality Bulletin for Peer would not result in any takings which Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. might require compensation under the 14, 2005). The purpose of the Bulletin ■ 2. Section 431.156 of subpart I is Fifth Amendment to the U.S. is to enhance the quality and credibility revised to read as follows: Constitution. 73 FR 62034, 62131 (Oct. of the Government’s scientific 17, 2008). DOE received no comments information. The Bulletin establishes § 431.156 Energy and water conservation concerning Executive Order 12630 in that certain scientific information shall standards and effective dates. response to the October 2008 NOPR or be peer reviewed by qualified specialists Each CCW manufactured on or after November 2009 SNOPR, and, therefore, before it is disseminated by the Federal January 8, 2013, shall have a modified

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 1178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

energy factor no less than and a water factor no greater than:

Modified energy Equipment class factor, Water factor, cu. ft./kWh/cycle gal./cu. ft./cycle

Top-Loading ...... 1.60 8.5 Front-Loading ...... 2.00 5.5

Appendix manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable substantial investment in the development of inefficiencies in production or distribution of new technology that some suppliers of top- [The following letter from the Department of particular products. loading CCWs may not find it economical to Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal We have reviewed the proposed standards make. CCWs are used primarily in multi- Regulations.] contained in the Notice of Proposed housing laundries, with top-loading DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Rulemaking (73 Fed. Reg. 62034, October 17, machines accounting for approximately 80 Antitrust Division 2008) and supplementary information percent of machines in these locations. The DEBORAH A. GARZA submitted to the Attorney General. We also remaining 20 percent are front-loading Acting Assistant Attorney General attended the November 13 public meeting on machines, which are more energy efficient Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania the proposed standards and conducted but significantly more expensive than top- Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530– interviews with industry members. Based on loading models. There are only three 0001, (202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 this review, we have determined that manufacturers of top-loading CCWs selling in (Fax), E-mail: [email protected], Web legitimate issues arise as to whether the the United States. It appears that there is a site: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr. proposed standards adversely effect real risk that one or more of these competition and consumer choice with December 16, 2008. manufacturers cannot meet the proposed respect to (1) gas cooking products with standard. In such a case, CCW purchasers Warren Belmar, Esq., Deputy General standing pilot lights and (2) top-loading would have fewer competitive alternatives Counsel for Energy Policy, Department of CCWs. Energy, Washington, DC 20585. for top-loading machines, potentially The proposed standards would extend the resulting in purchasers facing higher prices Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar: I am ban on constant burning pilot lights, from the remaining top-loading manufacturer responding to your October 1, 2008, letter currently applicable to cooking appliances or manufacturers. seeking the views of the Attorney General equipped with electrical supply cords, to Although the Department of Justice is not about the potential impact on competition of appliances that are not equipped with in a position to judge whether manufacturers proposed amended energy conservation electrical supply cords. As the notice will be able to meet the proposed standards, standards for residential kitchen ranges and regarding the proposed standards recognizes, we urge the Department of Energy to take ovens, microwave ovens, and commercial certain consumers, including those with into account these possible impacts on clothes washers (CCWs). Your request was religious and cultural practices that prohibit competition and the availability of options to submitted under Section 325(0)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the use of line electricity, those without consumers in determining its final energy the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as access to line electricity, and those whose efficiency standard for CCWs and residential amended, (‘‘ECPA’’), 42 U.S.C. kitchens do not have appropriate electrical gas cooking appliances with constant burning § 6295(0)(B)(i)(V), which requires the outlets, rely on gas cooking appliances with pilots. To maintain competition, the Attorney General to make a determination of standing pilots in lieu of electrical ignition Department of Energy should consider the impact of any lessening of competition devices. For these consumers, gas cooking keeping the existing standard in place for that is likely to result from the imposition of appliances with electronic ignition are not a top-loading CCWs. The Department of Energy proposed energy conservation standards. The reasonable substitute. The notice states that may wish to consider setting a ‘‘no standard’’ Attorney General’s responsibility for gas cooking appliances may become available responding to requests from other with technological options such as battery- standard for residential gas cooking products departments about the effect of a program on powered ignition to replace a standing pilot with constant burning pilots to address the competition has been delegated to the light. However, it is unclear whether such potential for certain customers to be stranded Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust battery-powered devices have been tested for without an economical product alternative. Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). indoor use and whether they are in The Department of Justice does not believe In conducting its analysis the Antitrust compliance with safety standards for such that the proposed standards for other Division examines whether a proposed use. If these options prove not to be feasible, products listed in the NOPR would likely standard may lessen competition, for then the proposed standard could lead to an adverse effect on competition. example, by substantially limiting consumer substantially limit consumer choice by Sincerely, choice, leaving consumers with fewer eliminating the cooking appliance that most Deborah A. Garza. competitive alternatives, placing certain closely meets these consumers’ needs. [FR Doc. E9–30891 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] manufacturers of a product at an unjustified As to top-loading CCWs, it appears that BILLING CODE 6450–01–P competitive disadvantage compared to other meeting the proposed standards may require

VerDate Nov<24>2008 12:56 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAR2.SGM 08JAR2 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Friday, January 8, 2010

Part III

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 238 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Front End Strength of Cab Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives; Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION personal information provided. Please c. Analysis see the Privacy Act heading, below. 3. FRA-Sponsored Dynamic and Quasi- Federal Railroad Administration Docket: For access to the docket to Static Testing in 2008 read background documents, comments, a. Test Article Design 49 CFR Part 238 b. Dynamic Testing of a Collision Post or petitions for reconsideration c. Quasi-Static Testing of Collision and [Docket No. FRA–2006–25268, Notice No. received, go to http:// Corner Posts 2] www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the d. Analysis Docket Management Facility, U.S. F. Approaches for Specifying Large RIN 2130–AB80 Department of Transportation, West Deformation Requirements Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, G. Crash Energy Management and the Passenger Equipment Safety 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Design of Front End Frame Structures of Standards; Front End Strength of Cab Cab Cars and MU Locomotives Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives H. European Standard EN 15227 FCD, p.m., Monday through Friday, except Crashworthiness Requirements for AGENCY: Federal Railroad Federal holidays. Follow the online Railway Vehicle Bodies Administration (FRA), Department of instructions for accessing the dockets. IV. Discussion of Specific Comments and Transportation (DOT). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Conclusions A. Technical Comments ACTION: Final rule. G. Fairbanks, Specialist, Motive Power and Equipment Division, Office of 1. Crash Energy Management SUMMARY: This final rule is intended to 2. Dynamic Performance Requirements Railroad Safety, RRS–14, Mail Stop 25, 3. Alternative Corner Post Requirements further the safety of passenger train Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 for Designs With Stepwells occupants by amending existing New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 4. Use of Testing and Analysis To regulations to enhance requirements for DC 20590 (telephone 202–493–6282); Demonstrate Compliance the structural strength of the front end Eloy E. Martinez, Program Manager, 5. Submission of Test Plans for FRA of cab cars and multiple-unit (MU) Equipment and Operating Practices Review locomotives. These enhancements Division, Office of Railroad 6. Whether the Requirements Affect include the addition of requirements Development, Federal Railroad Vehicle Weight concerning structural deformation and 7. System Safety Administration, 55 Broadway, 8. Other Comments energy absorption by collision posts and Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 B. Preemption corner posts at the forward end of this (telephone 617–494–2599); or Daniel L. 1. Whether FRA Characterized Its Views on equipment. The requirements are based Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Preemption as the RSAC Consensus on standards specified by the American Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 2. Whether FRA’s Views Are Consistent Public Transportation Association Administration, 1200 New Jersey With 49 U.S.C. 20106, as Amended (APTA). FRA is also making clarifying Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 3. Whether FRA’s Views on Preemption amendments to existing regulations for (telephone 202–493–6026). Affect Safety the structural strength of passenger 4. Whether FRA’s Views on Preemption SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affect Recovery for Victims of Railroad equipment and is clarifying its views on Accidents the preemptive effect of this part. Table of Contents for Supplementary Information 5. How a State May Act as the Owner and DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is Not the Regulator of a Railroad effective March 9, 2010. Petitions for I. Statutory Background 6. How State Regulation of Push-Pull reconsideration of this final rule must II. Proceedings to Date Operations Is Preempted be received not later than February 22, A. Proceedings To Carry Out the Initial 7. Whether It Was Necessary To Discuss 2010. 1994 Rulemaking Mandate Preemption in the NPRM B. Key Issues Identified for Future 8. Whether FRA Has Authority To Express ADDRESSES: Any petition for Rulemaking Its Views on Preemption reconsideration of the final rule should C. RSAC Overview 9. What Impelled FRA’s Views on reference Docket No. FRA–2006–25268, D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety Preemption Notice No. 2, and be submitted by any Working Group in May 2003 10. Whether FRA’s Views on Preemption of the following methods: E. Establishment of the Crashworthiness/ Affect FELA • Glazing Task Force in November 2003 11. Whether Preemption Applies Under the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to F. Development of the NPRM Published in http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Locomotive (Boiler) Inspection Act August 2007 V. Section-by-Section Analysis online instructions for submitting G. Development of This Final Rule VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices comments. III. Technical Background A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT • Mail: Docket Management Facility, A. Predominant Types of Passenger Rail Regulatory Policies and Procedures U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 Service B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building B. Front End Frame Structures of Cab Cars Order 13272 Ground Floor, Room W12–140, and MU Locomotives C. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Accident History D. Federalism Implications Washington, DC 20590. D. FRA and Industry Standards for Front • Hand Delivery: Docket Management E. Environmental Impact End Frame Structures of Cab Cars and F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Facility, U.S. Department of MU Locomotives G. Energy Impact Transportation, 1200 New Jersey E. Testing of Front End Frame Structures H. Trade Impact Avenue, SE., West Building Ground of Cab Cars and MU Locomotives I. Privacy Act Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 1. FRA-Sponsored Dynamic Testing in between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday 2002 I. Statutory Background through Friday, except Federal holidays. a. Test Article Designs In September of 1994, the Secretary of • b. Dynamic Impact Testing Transportation (Secretary) convened a Fax: 202–493–2251. c. Analysis Instructions: Note that all petitions for 2. Industry-Sponsored Quasi-Static Testing meeting of representatives from all reconsideration received will be posted in 2001 sectors of the rail industry with the goal without change to http:// a. Test Article Design of enhancing rail safety. As one of the www.regulations.gov, including any b. Quasi-Static Testing initiatives arising from this Rail Safety

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1181

Summit, the Secretary announced that movement of defective equipment. To addition, in promulgating the rule, FRA DOT would begin developing safety address the petitions, FRA grouped established specific requirements for standards for rail passenger equipment issues together and published in the passenger train emergency systems, e.g., over a five-year period. In November of Federal Register three sets of to mark all emergency window exits and 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s amendments to the final rule. Each set all windows intended for rescue access schedule for implementing rail of amendments summarized the petition by emergency responders, to light or passenger equipment safety regulations requests at issue, explained what action, mark all door exits intended for egress, and included it in the Federal Railroad if any, FRA decided to take in response to mark all door exits intended for Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the to the issues raised, and described rescue access by emergency responders, Act), Public Law 103–440, 108 Stat. FRA’s justifications for its decisions and and to provide instructions for the use 4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). any action taken. Specifically, on July 3, of such exits and means of rescue Congress also authorized the Secretary 2000, FRA issued a response to the access. to consult with various organizations petitions for reconsideration relating to B. Key Issues Identified for Future involved in passenger train operations the inspection, testing, and maintenance Rulemaking for purposes of prescribing and of passenger equipment, the movement amending these regulations, as well as of defective passenger equipment, and Although FRA had completed these issuing orders pursuant to them. Section other miscellaneous provisions related rulemakings, FRA had identified 215 of the Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. to mechanical issues contained in the various issues for possible future 20133. final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April rulemaking, including those to be 23, 2002, FRA responded to all II. Proceedings to Date addressed following the completion of remaining issues raised in the petitions additional research, the gathering of A. Proceedings To Carry Out the Initial for reconsideration, with the exception additional operating experience, or the 1994 Rulemaking Mandate of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR development of industry standards, or The Secretary delegated these 19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA all three. One such issue concerned rulemaking responsibilities to the completed its response to the petitions enhancing the requirements for corner Administrator of the Federal Railroad for reconsideration by publishing a posts on cab cars and MU locomotives. Administration, see 49 CFR 1.49(m), response to the petitions for See 64 FR 25607. FRA requirements for and FRA formed the Passenger reconsideration concerning the fire corner posts were based on Equipment Safety Standards Working safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR conventional industry practice at the Group to provide FRA with advice in 42892. (For more detailed information time, which had not proven adequate in developing the regulations. On June 17, on the petitions for reconsideration and then-recent side swipe collisions with 1996, FRA published an advance notice FRA’s response to them, please see cab cars leading. Id. FRA explained that of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) these three rulemaking documents.) The those requirements were being adopted concerning the establishment of product of this rulemaking was codified as an interim measure to prevent the comprehensive safety standards for primarily at 49 CFR part 238 and introduction of equipment not meeting railroad passenger equipment. See 61 secondarily at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, the requirements, that FRA was FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 229, 231, and 232. assisting APTA in preparing an industry background information on the need for Meanwhile, another rulemaking on standard for corner post arrangements such standards, offered preliminary passenger train emergency preparedness on cab cars and MU locomotives, and ideas on approaching passenger safety produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR that adoption of a suitable Federal issues, and presented questions on part 239. See 63 FR 24629 (May 4, standard would be an immediate various passenger safety topics. 1998). The rule addresses passenger priority. Id. In broader terms, this issue Following consideration of comments train emergencies of various kinds, concerned the behavior of cab car and received on the ANPRM and advice including security situations, and MU locomotive end frames when from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety requires the preparation, adoption, and overloaded, as during an impact with Standards Working Group, FRA implementation of emergency maintenance-of-way equipment or with published an NPRM on September 23, preparedness plans by railroads a highway vehicle at a highway-rail 1997, to establish comprehensive safety connected with the operation of grade crossing, and thus concerned standards for railroad passenger passenger trains. The emergency collision post strength as well. FRA and equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In preparedness plans must include interested industry members also began addition to requesting written comment elements such as communication, identifying other issues related to the on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral employee training and qualification, passenger equipment safety standards comment at a public hearing held on joint operations, tunnel safety, liaison and the passenger train emergency November 21, 1997. FRA considered the with emergency responders, on-board preparedness regulations. FRA decided comments received on the NPRM and emergency equipment, and passenger to address these issues with the prepared a final rule establishing safety information. The rule requires assistance of FRA’s Railroad Safety comprehensive safety standards for each affected railroad to instruct its Advisory Committee (RSAC). passenger equipment, which was employees on the applicable provisions C. RSAC Overview published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR of its plan, and the plan adopted by 25540. each railroad is subject to formal review In March 1996, FRA established After publication of the final rule, and approval by FRA. The rule also RSAC, which provides a forum for interested parties filed petitions seeking requires each railroad operating developing consensus recommendations FRA’s reconsideration of certain passenger train service to conduct to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings requirements contained in the rule. emergency simulations to determine its and other safety program issues. The These petitions generally related to the capability to execute the emergency Committee includes representation from following subject areas: Structural preparedness plan under the variety of all of the agency’s major stakeholders, design; fire safety; training; inspection, emergency scenarios that could including railroads, labor organizations, testing, and maintenance; and reasonably be expected to occur. In suppliers and manufacturers, and other

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

interested parties. A list of member When appropriate, FRA assigns a task • AAPRCO; groups follows: to RSAC, and after consideration and • AASHTO; • American Association of Private debate, RSAC may accept or reject the • Amtrak; Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO); task. If the task is accepted, RSAC • APTA, including members from • American Association of State establishes a working group that Bombardier, Inc., LDK Engineering, Highway and Transportation Officials possesses the appropriate expertise and Herzog Transit Services, Inc., Long (AASHTO); representation of interests to develop Island Rail Road (LIRR), Metro—North • American Chemistry Council; recommendations to FRA for action on Commuter Railroad Company (Metro- • American Petroleum Institute; the task. These recommendations are North), Northeast Illinois Regional • APTA; developed by consensus. A working Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), • American Short Line and Regional group may establish one or more task Southern California Regional Rail Railroad Association (ASLRRA); forces to develop facts and options on Authority (Metrolink), and Southeastern • American Train Dispatchers a particular aspect of a given task. The Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Association; individual task force then provides that (SEPTA); • Association of American Railroads information to the working group for • BLET; (AAR); consideration. If a working group comes • BRS; • Association of Railway Museums; to unanimous consensus on • FTA; • Association of State Rail Safety recommendations for action, the • HSGTA; Managers (ASRSM); package is presented to the full RSAC • IBEW; • Brotherhood of Locomotive for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by • NARP; Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal • • RSI; Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way is formally recommended to FRA. FRA • SMWIA; Employes Division; then determines what action to take on • • STA; Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen the recommendation. Because FRA staff • TCIU/BRC; (BRS); play an active role at the working group • • TWU; and Chlorine Institute; level in discussing the issues and • UTU. • Federal Transit Administration options and in drafting the language of Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe (FTA);* the consensus proposal, FRA is often National Transportation Systems Center • Fertilizer Institute; favorably inclined toward the RSAC (Volpe Center) attended all of the • High Speed Ground Transportation recommendation. However, FRA is in meetings and contributed to the Association (HSGTA); no way bound to follow the technical discussions. In addition, staff • Institute of Makers of Explosives; recommendation, and the agency from the NTSB met with the Working • International Association of exercises its independent judgment on Group. The Working Group has held 13 Machinists and Aerospace Workers; whether the recommendation achieves meetings on the following dates and • International Brotherhood of the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly locations: Electrical Workers (IBEW); supported, and is in accordance with • September 9–10, 2003, in • Labor Council for Latin American policy and legal requirements. Often, Washington, DC; Advancement;* FRA varies in some respects from the • • League of Railway Industry RSAC recommendation in developing November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, PA; Women;* an actual regulatory proposal or final • • National Association of Railroad May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; rule. Any such variations would be • Passengers (NARP); noted and explained in the rulemaking October 26–27, 2004 in Linthicum/ • National Association of Railway Baltimore, MD; document issued by FRA. If the working • Business Women;* group or RSAC is unable to reach March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. • National Conference of Firemen & Lauderdale, FL; consensus on a recommendation for • Oilers; September 7, 2005 in Chicago, IL; action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the • • National Railroad Construction and issue(s) through traditional rulemaking March 21–22, 2006 in Ft. Maintenance Association; Lauderdale, FL; proceedings or other action. • • National Railroad Passenger September 12–13, 2006 in Orlando, Corporation (Amtrak); D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety FL; • NTSB;* Working Group in May 2003 • April 17–18, 2007 in Orlando, FL; • Railway Supply Institute (RSI); On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and • December 11, 2007 in Ft. • Safe Travel America (STA); RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing Lauderdale, FL; • Secretaria de Comunicaciones y existing passenger equipment safety • June 18, 2008, in Baltimore, MD; Transporte;* needs and programs and recommending • November 13, 2008, in Washington, • Sheet Metal Workers International consideration of specific actions that DC; and Association (SMWIA); could be useful in advancing the safety • June 8, 2009, in Washington, DC. • Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; of rail passenger service. RSAC At the meetings in Chicago and Ft. • Transport Canada;* established the Passenger Safety Lauderdale in 2005, FRA met with • Transport Workers Union of Working Group (Working Group) to representatives of Tri-Rail (the South America (TWU); handle this task and develop Florida Regional Transportation • Transportation Communications recommendations for the full RSAC Authority) and Metra, respectively, and International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); body to consider. Members of the toured their passenger equipment. The • Transportation Security Working Group, in addition to FRA, visits were open to all members of the Administration (TSA);* and include the following: Working Group and FRA believes they • United Transportation Union • AAR, including members from have added to the collective (UTU). BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CSX understanding of the Group in *Indicates associate, non-voting Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific identifying and addressing passenger membership. Railroad Company; equipment safety issues.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1183

E. Establishment of the Transportation Authority (MBTA), absorbing structures used as part of a Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force in Metrolink, Metro-North, Northern crash energy management design (CEM), November 2003 Indiana Commuter Transportation or both, should be specified. The NPRM Due to the variety of issues involved, District (NICTD), Hyundai Rotem therefore provided an option for the at its November 2003 meeting the Company, Saint Gobian Sully NA, San dynamic testing of cab cars and MU Working Group established four task Diego Northern Commuter Railroad locomotives as a means of (Coaster), SEPTA, and STV, Inc.; demonstrating compliance with the forces—smaller groups to develop • recommendations on specific issues BLET; rule. However, FRA made clear that the • California Department of within each group’s particular area of proposal was not the result of an RSAC Transportation (Caltrans); expertise. Members of the task forces recommendation. Otherwise, FRA • NARP; adopted the RSAC’s recommendations included various representatives from • RSI; and with generally minor changes for the respective organizations that were • UTU. purposes of clarity and formatting in the part of the larger Working Group. One While not voting members of the Task Federal Register. of these task forces was assigned the job Force, representatives from the NTSB The NPRM was published in the of identifying and developing issues and attended meetings and contributed to Federal Register on August 1, 2007, see recommendations specifically related to the discussions of the Task Force. In 72 FR 42016, and FRA solicited public the inspection, testing, and operation of addition, staff from the Volpe Center comment on it. FRA notified the public passenger equipment as well as attended all of the meetings and of its option to submit written concerns related to the attachment of contributed to the technical discussions. comments on the NPRM and to request safety appliances on passenger The Task Force held seven meetings a public, oral hearing on the NPRM. equipment. An NPRM on these topics on the following dates and locations: FRA also invited comment on a number was published on December 8, 2005, see • March 17–18, 2004, in Cambridge, of specific issues related to the proposed 70 FR 73069, and a final rule was MA; requirements for the purpose of published on October 19, 2006, see 71 • May 13, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; developing the final rule. FR 61835. Another of these task forces • November 9, 2004, in Boston, MA; was established to identify issues and • February 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge, G. Development of This Final Rule develop recommendations related to MA; This final rule is the product of FRA’s emergency systems, procedures, and • April 21–22, 2005, in Cambridge, review and consideration of the equipment, and helped to develop an MA; recommendations of the Task Force, NPRM on these topics that was • August 11, 2005, in Cambridge, Working Group, and full RSAC, and the published on August 24, 2006, see 71 MA; and written comments to the docket. FRA FR 50276, and a final rule that was • September 9–10, 2008, in received written comments in response published on February 1, 2008, see 73 Cambridge, MA. to the publication of the NPRM from a FR 6370. Another task force, the wide array of interested parties. F. Development of the NPRM Published Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force Specifically, FRA received three in August 2007 (Task Force), was assigned the job of separate comments from members of the developing recommendations related to The NPRM was developed to address U.S. Congress: (1) From Senator Kent glazing integrity, structural concerns raised and issues discussed Conrad, Senator Byron Dorgan, and crashworthiness, and the protection of about cab car and MU locomotive front Congressman Earl Pomeroy; (2) from occupants during accidents and end frame structures during the Task Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman, incidents. Specifically, this Task Force Force meetings and pertinent Working House Committee on Transportation was charged with developing Group meetings. Minutes of each of and Infrastructure, and Congressman recommendations for glazing these meetings have been made part of Bennie Thompson, Chairman, House qualification testing and for cab car and the docket in this proceeding and are Committee on Homeland Security; and MU locomotive end frame optimization. available for public inspection. Except (3) from Congressman Adam Schiff. (Glazing and cab car/MU locomotive for one issue, which is discussed below, FRA also received comments from the end frame issues are being handled the Working Group reached consensus AAR and APTA, which represent freight separately, and glazing is not a subject on the principal regulatory provisions and passenger railroads, respectively, as of this final rule.) The Task Force was contained in the NPRM at its meeting in well as comments from Caltrans and the also given the responsibility of September 2005. After the September Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board addressing a number of other issues 2005 meeting, the Working Group (Caltrain), which are involved in related to glazing, structural presented its recommendations to the providing passenger rail service. The crashworthiness, and occupant full RSAC body for concurrence at its BLET and UTU submitted comments on protection and recommending any meeting in October 2005. All of the behalf of the railroad employees whom research necessary to facilitate their members of the full RSAC in attendance they represent. In addition, FRA resolution. Members of the Task Force, at its October 2005 meeting accepted the received comments from rail car in addition to FRA, include the regulatory recommendations submitted manufacturers Bombardier and following: by the Working Group. Thus, the Colorado Railcar Manufacturing (CRM), • AAR; Working Group’s recommendations as well as from the firm of Raul V. Bravo • Amtrak; became the full RSAC’s + Associates, Inc. (RVB). FRA also • APTA, including members from recommendations to FRA. received comments from other Bombardier, Inc., General Electric After reviewing the full RSAC’s interested parties: the American Transportation Systems, General recommendations, FRA agreed that the Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly Motors–Electro-Motive Division, recommendations provided a good basis known as the Association of Trial Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc., LDK for a proposed rule, but that test Lawyers of America, and the California Engineering, LIRR, LTK Engineering standards and performance criteria more Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). All Services, Maryland Transit suitable to cab cars and MU locomotives Aboard Washington (AAWA), an Administration, Massachusetts Bay without flat forward ends or with energy advocacy organization for promoting

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1184 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

rail service in the Pacific Northwest, 2000, rail travel is about as safe as operated by Amtrak. On a daily basis, and a private citizen also commented on scheduled airline service and intercity however, most passenger rail service is the NPRM. At about the same time as bus transportation, and it is far safer provided by commuter railroads, which the written comment period closed on than private motor vehicle travel. typically operate one or both of the two October 1, 2007, management of DOT Passenger rail accidents—while always most predominant types of service: rulemaking dockets was transitioning to be avoided—have a very high Push-pull service and MU locomotive from DOT to the Federal Docket passenger survival rate. service. Management System at http:// Yet, as in any form of transportation, Push-pull service is passenger train www.regulations.gov. This transition led there are risks inherent in passenger rail service typically operated, in one to some delay in the posting of travel. For this reason, FRA continually direction of travel, with a conventional comments to the Web site; however, works to improve the safety of passenger locomotive in the rear of the train FRA has considered all such comments rail operations. FRA’s efforts include pushing the consist (the ‘‘push mode’’) in preparing this final rule. sponsoring the research and and with a cab car in the lead position FRA notes that Congressman Adam development of safety technologies, of the train; and, in the opposite Schiff made a request that FRA hold providing technical support for industry direction of travel, the service is public hearings to receive oral comment specifications and standards, and operated with the conventional on the NPRM in Los Angeles or engaging in cooperative rulemaking locomotive in the lead position of the Glendale, CA, so that those who have a efforts with key industry stakeholders. train pulling the consist (the ‘‘pull ‘‘deeply-felt’’ concern for rail safety FRA has focused in particular on mode’’) and with the cab car in the rear could be heard. As stated in a January enhancing the crashworthiness of of the train. (A cab car is both a 30, 2008 letter to Congressman Schiff, passenger trains. passenger car, in that it has seats for FRA discussed this request with the In a passenger train collision or passengers, and a locomotive, in that it Congressman’s staff and was informed derailment, the principal has a control cab from which the that the Congressman had decided to crashworthiness risks that occupants engineer can operate the train.) Control reserve his request that FRA convene face are the loss of safe space inside the cables run the length of the train, as do public hearings on the NPRM. (A copy train from crushing of the train structure electrical lines providing power for of this letter has been placed in the and, as the train decelerates, the risk of heat, lights, and other purposes. public docket for this rulemaking.) No secondary impacts with interior MU locomotive service is passenger public hearing was held in response to surfaces. Therefore, the principal goals rail service involving trains consisting the NPRM. of the crashworthiness research of self-propelled electric or diesel MU Throughout the preamble discussion sponsored by FRA are twofold: First, to locomotives. MU locomotives may of this final rule, FRA refers to preserve a safe space in which operate individually but typically comments, views, suggestions, or occupants can ride out the collision or operate semi-permanently coupled recommendations made by members of derailment, and, then, to minimize the together as a pair or triplet with a the Task Force, Working Group, and full physical forces to which occupants are control cab at each end of the consist. RSAC. FRA does so to show the origin subjected when impacting surfaces During peak commuting hours, multiple of certain issues and the nature of inside a passenger train as the train pairs or triplets of MU locomotives, or discussions concerning those issues at decelerates. Though not a part of this a combination of both, are typically the Task Force, Working Group, and full final rule, other crashworthiness operated together as a single passenger RSAC level. FRA believes this serves to research focuses on related issues such train in MU service. This type of service illuminate factors that it has weighed in as fuel tank safety, for equipment with does not make use of a conventional making its regulatory decisions, as well a fuel tank, and the associated risk of locomotive as a primary means of as the logic behind those decisions. The fire if the fuel tank is breached during motive power. MU locomotive service is reader should keep in mind, of course, the collision or derailment. very similar to push-pull service as that only the full RSAC makes The results of ongoing research on cab operated in the push mode with the cab recommendations to FRA and that it is car and MU locomotive front end frame car in the lead. the consensus recommendation of the structures help demonstrate both the By focusing on enhancements to cab full RSAC on which FRA acts. However, effectiveness and the practicality of the car and MU locomotive as noted above, FRA is in no way bound structural enhancements in this final crashworthiness, FRA seeks to enhance to follow the recommendation, and the rule to make this equipment more the safety of the two most typical forms agency exercises its independent crashworthy. This research is discussed of passenger rail service in the U.S. judgment on whether the recommended below, along with other technical B. Front End Frame Structures of Cab rule achieves the agency’s regulatory information providing the background Cars and MU Locomotives goal, is soundly supported, and is in for this rulemaking. accordance with policy and legal Structurally, MU locomotives and cab A. Predominant Types of Passenger Rail requirements. cars built in the same period are very Service similar. Both are designed to be III. Technical Background FRA’s focus on cab car and MU occupied by passengers and to operate Transporting passengers by rail in the locomotive crashworthiness should be as the lead units of passenger trains. The U.S. is very safe. Since the beginning of considered in the context of the principal distinction is that cab cars do 1978, about 12.5 billion passengers have predominant types of passenger rail not have motors to propel themselves. traveled by rail, based on reports filed service in North America. The first Unlike MU locomotives and cab cars, monthly with FRA. The number of rail involves operation of passenger trains conventional locomotives are not passengers has steadily increased over with conventional locomotives in the designed to be occupied by the years, and since the year 2000 has lead, typically pulling consists of passengers—only by operating averaged more than 525 million passenger coaches and other cars such crewmembers. Concern has been raised passengers per year. On a passenger- as baggage cars, dining cars, and about the safety of cab car-led and MU mile basis, with an average of about 16.1 sleeping cars. Such trains are common locomotive train service due to the billion passenger-miles per year since on long-distance, intercity rail routes closer proximity of the engineer and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1185

passengers to the leading end of the their traction motors removed for additional lateral members: a lateral train than in conventional locomotive- testing.) Flat-nosed designs are member/shelf located just below the led service. representative of a large portion of the window frame structure; and an anti- The principal purpose of cab car and cab car and MU locomotive fleet. telescoping plate at the top. The MU locomotive front end frame In a typical flat-nosed cab car, the end attachment of the end frame structure to structures is to provide protection for frame is composed of several structural the rest of the vehicle typically occurs the engineer and passengers in the event elements that act together to resist at three locations. The first location is of a collision where the superstructure inward deformations under load. The at the draft sill at the level of the of the vehicle is directly engaged and base of the end frame structure is underframe. This is the main the underframe is either not engaged or composed of the end/buffer beam, connection where a majority of any only indirectly engaged in the collision. which is directly connected to the draft longitudinal load applied to the end In the event of impacts with objects sill of the vehicle. For cars that include frame is reacted into the underframe of above the underframe of a cab car or MU stepwells, the side sills of the the vehicle. There are two other locomotive, the end frame members are underframe generally do not directly connections at the cant/roof rail located the primary source of protection for the connect to the end/buffer beam. There at each side of the car just below the engineer and the passengers. There are are four major vertical members level of the roof. When a longitudinal various types of cab cars and MU connected to the end/buffer beam: two load is applied to the end frame, it is locomotives in current use. As collision posts located approximately at reacted by the draft sill and the cant discussed below, flat-nosed, single-level the one-third points along the length of rails into the main car body structure. A cab cars have been used for purposes of the beam; and two corner posts located schematic of a typical arrangement is FRA-sponsored crashworthiness at the outermost points of the beam. depicted in Figure 1 (although not every research. (The cab cars were originally These structural elements are also cab car or MU locomotive necessarily constructed as MU locomotives but had connected together through two has every component shown).

C. Accident History frame did not effectively absorb locomotive, resulting in three fatalities. collision energy occurred in Portage, IN, Little of the collision energy was In a collision involving the front end in 1998 when a NICTD train consisting absorbed by the collision post, because of a cab car or an MU locomotive, it is of MU locomotives struck a tractor- the post had failed before it could vitally important that the end frame tandem trailer carrying steel coils that deform in any significant way. behaves in a ductile manner, absorbing had become immobilized on a grade There are additional examples of some of the collision energy in order to crossing.1 The leading MU locomotive incidents where the end frame of a cab maintain sufficient space in which the impacted a steel coil at a point centered engineer and passengers can ride out the on one of its collision posts, the car or an MU locomotive was engaged event. Several collisions have occurred collision post failed, and the steel coil during a collision and a loss of where the superstructure of a leading penetrated into the interior of the survivable volume ensued due to the cab car has been loaded but the failure of end frame structures. In a underframe of the car has not. These 1 National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Collision collision in Secaucus, NJ, in 1996, a cab collisions demonstrate a need for better of Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation car-led New Jersey Transit Rail protecting the cab engineer and District Train 102 with a Tractor-Trailer Portage, Operations (NJTR) train impacted a Indiana, June 18, 1998,’’ RAR–99–03, 07/26/1999. conventional locomotive-led NJTR passengers from external threats. One This report is available on the NTSB’s Web site at: example of a collision where the end http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/RAR9903.pdf.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.000 1186 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

train.2 At the collision interface, the for developing structural enhancements service for the first time on or after conventional locomotive pushed in or that can improve crashworthiness September 9, 2002). tore loose the collision and corner posts performance. APTA also issued industry standards of the cab car. The underframe of the FRA also notes that on January 26, in 1999, in furtherance of its initiative cab car was not loaded. The engineers 2005, in Glendale, CA, a collision to continue the development and of both trains and one passenger in the involving an unoccupied sport utility maintenance of voluntary industry cab car were fatally injured. Also in vehicle (SUV) (that was intentionally standards for the safety of railroad 1996 in Silver Spring, MD, a collision parked on the track by a private citizen), passenger equipment. In particular, occurred between a cab car-led two Metrolink commuter trains, and a APTA Safety Standard (SS)–C&S–013– Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC) standing freight train resulted in 11 99, Standard for Corner Post Structural train and a conventional locomotive-led fatalities and numerous injuries. Eight Strength for Railroad Passenger Amtrak train. In the collision, the front of the fatalities occurred on a cab car- Equipment, and SS–C&S–014–99, left collision and corner posts of the cab led commuter train, which derailed after Standard for Collision Post Structural car were pushed in and torn loose. The striking the SUV, causing the cab car to Strength for Railroad Passenger underframe of the cab car was not be guided down a railroad siding, which Equipment, included provisions on end loaded.3 Three crewmembers and eight resulted in an impact at an approximate frame designs for cab cars and MU passengers on the MARC train were speed of 49 mph with the standing locomotives. (Copies of these standards fatally injured as result of the collision freight train. After the collision with the have been placed in the public docket and ensuing fire. Earlier, on January 18, standing freight train, the rear end of the for this rulemaking.) Specifically, these 1993, near Gary, IN, two NICTD trains lead cab car buckled laterally, APTA standards included increased collided corner-to-corner on intersecting obstructing the right-of-way of an industry requirements for the strength of tracks that shared a bridge. One of the oncoming, conventional locomotive-led cab car and MU locomotive vertical end trains was at rest and the other had a commuter train. The rear end of the cab frame members—collision posts and speed estimated to be 32 mph. The left car raked the side of the conventional corner posts. The 1999 APTA standards front corner posts and adjacent car body locomotive-led train, which was moving also included industry requirements for sidewall structures were destroyed on at an approximate speed of 51 mph, the deformation of these end frame the leading MU locomotive of each crushing occupied areas of that train. vertical members, specifying that they train. Seven passengers were fatally This incident involved enormous must be able to sustain ‘‘severe injured.4 quantities of kinetic energy, and the deformation’’ before failure of the The preceding collisions were used to underframe of the leading cab car connections to the underframe and roof characterize types of loading conditions, crushed more than 20 feet inward. structures occurs. which led to the development of a Because the strength of the end frame In January 2000, APTA requested that simplified, generalized test scenario, in ultimately depends on the strength of FRA develop information on the furtherance of the goal of establishing the underframe, which failed here, effectiveness of APTA’s then-recently methods for measuring the stronger collision posts and corner posts introduced Manual of Standards and crashworthiness performance of end on the front end of the leading cab car Recommended Practices for Rail frame structures and developing would have been, in themselves, of little Passenger Equipment, which included strategies for incrementally improving benefit in absorbing the collision APTA SS–C&S–013–99 and APTA SS– their survivability under a range of energy. For this reason, as discussed C&S–014–99, and FRA’s then-recently impact conditions. Although the speeds below, FRA has been exploring other issued Passenger Equipment Safety associated with certain past events are crashworthiness strategies, such as Standards rule. This review was greater than the speed at which full CEM, to help mitigate the effects of intended to look in particular at what protection can currently be provided, collisions involving higher impact increase in crashworthiness was and even though enhancements to speeds. Nevertheless, CEM will also obtained for cab cars and MU passenger train emergency features and require proper end frame performance locomotives through the combination of other requirements unrelated to in order to function as intended. these standards and regulations. FRA shared APTA’s interest and included crashworthiness, such as fire safety, D. FRA and Industry Standards for full-scale impact tests and associated may overall do as much or more to Front End Frame Structures of Cab Cars planning and analysis activities in its prevent or mitigate the consequences of and MU Locomotives overall research plan to gather this these types of events, these collisions do Both the Federal government and the information. FRA then developed the provide indicative loading conditions passenger railroad industry have been details of the testing process in working together to improve the conjunction with APTA’s Passenger Rail 2 National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Near Head-On Collision and Derailment of Two New crashworthiness of cab cars and MU Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) Jersey Transit Commuter Trains Near Secaucus, locomotives. As noted above, in 1999, Construction and Structural (C&S) New Jersey, February 9, 1996,’’ RAR–97–01, 03/25/ after several years of development and Subcommittee. 1997. This report is available on the NTSB’s Web in consultation with a working group Around this same time, questions site at: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/ RAR9701.pdf. comprised of key industry stakeholders, arose in the passenger rail industry in 3 National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Collision FRA promulgated the Passenger applying the APTA standards for and Derailment of Maryland Rail Commuter MARC Equipment Safety Standards final rule. collision posts and corner posts to new Train 286 and National Railroad Passenger The rule included end frame structure cab cars and MU locomotives. Views Corporation AMTRAK Train 29 Near Silver Spring, requirements and additional differed as to what the standards Maryland, on February 16, 1996,’’ RAR–97–02, 06/ 17/1997. This report is available on the NTSB’s crashworthiness-related requirements actually specified—namely, the Web site at: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/ for cab cars, MU locomotives, and other meaning of ‘‘severe deformation’’ in the RAR9702.pdf. passenger equipment. In particular, the provisions calling for corner and 4 National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Collision final rule provided for strengthened collision posts to sustain ‘‘severe between Northern Indiana Commuter ’’ Transportation District Eastbound Train 7 and collision posts for new cab cars and MU deformation before failure of the posts’ Westbound Train 12 Near Gary, Indiana, on January locomotives (i.e., those ordered on or attachments. Consequently, there was 18, 1993,’’ RAR–93–03, 12/7/1993. after September 8, 2000, or placed in not common agreement as to whether

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1187

particular designs met the standards. On The NPRM in this rulemaking was against the performance of older May 22, 2003, APTA’s PRESS based on APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. designs. The grade-crossing tests were Committee accepted the 1, and proposed dynamic performance intended to address the concern of recommendation of its C&S requirements in the alternative to the occupant vulnerability to bulk crushing Subcommittee to replace these quasi-static, large deformation criteria in resulting from offset/oblique collisions provisions in the standards concerning the APTA Standards. In response to the where the primary load-resisting- ‘‘severe deformation’’ with a NPRM, members of industry disagreed structure is the equipment’s end frame recommended practice that the corner with including FRA’s proposed design. and collision post attachments be able dynamic performance requirements in a. Test Article Designs to sustain minimum prescribed loads the rule and requested that FRA with negligible deformation. APTA SS– demonstrate actual compliance with Two end frame designs were C&S–013–99 and SS–C&S–014–99 were both the quasi-static and the dynamic developed. The first end frame design then incorporated in their entirety into large deformation requirements that was representative of typical designs of APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. 1, were proposed. As detailed below, these passenger rail vehicles in the 1990s Standard for the Design and tests were performed in the spring and prior to 1999. The first end frame design Construction of Passenger Railroad summer of 2008. FRA has sought to is referred to as the ‘‘1990s design.’’ The Rolling Stock. (A copy of APTA SS– retain the dynamic performance second end frame design incorporated C&S–034–99, Rev. 1, has been placed in requirements as an alternative to the all the enhancements required the public docket for this rulemaking. quasi-static requirements, in particular beginning in 1999 by FRA’s Passenger As discussed below, the latest revision, because the dynamic performance Equipment Safety Standards in part 238 Rev. 2, of APTA SS–C&S–034–99 is requirements facilitate evaluation of and also recommended beginning in available on APTA’s Web site at equipment without a flat front-end or 1999 by APTA’s standards for corner http://www.aptastandards.com/portals/ traditional corner or collision posts. post and collision post structures, 0/PRESS_pdfs/Construcstruct/ After discussion within the Task Force, respectively, SS–C&S–013–99 and SS– construcstruct%20reaffirm/ consensus was reached on including C&S–014–99. The second end frame APTA%20SS-CS-034-99%20Rev%202- dynamic performance requirements in design is referred to as the State-of-the- Approved.pdf. The larger compilation of appendix F to part 238 as an alternative Art (SOA) design. The two end frame standards and recommended practices to the enhanced collision and corner designs developed were then retrofitted for rail passenger equipment of which post requirements in §§ 238.211 and onto two Budd Pioneer passenger rail this standard is a part, APTA’s Manual 238.213 of this final rule. As discussed cars for testing. of Standards and Recommended below, the enhanced requirements in The SOA design differed principally Practices for Rail Passenger Equipment, §§ 238.211 and 238.213 essentially from the 1990s design by having higher is available on APTA’s Web site at codify the current APTA standards. values for static loading of the end http://aptastandards.com/ E. Testing of Front End Frame frame structure and by specifically PublishedDocuments/ Structures of Cab Cars and MU addressing the performance of the PublishedStandards/PRESS/tabid/85/ Locomotives collision and corner posts when Default.aspx.) overloaded. As noted above, the 1999 This section summarizes the work When the decision to turn the APTA standards for cab car and MU done by FRA and the passenger rail locomotive end frame structures provisions concerning ‘‘severe industry on developing the technical included the following statement for deformation’’ into a recommended information to support regulations both corner and collision posts: practice was made, ongoing research requiring that corner and collision posts from full-scale impact tests was showing in cab car and MU locomotive front end [The] post and its supporting structure that a substantial increase in cab car and frames fail in a controlled manner when shall be designed so that when it is MU locomotive crashworthiness could overloaded. Due to the collaborative overloaded * * * failure shall begin as be achieved by designing the posts to bending or buckling in the post. The work of FRA with the passenger rail connections of the post to the supporting first deform and thereby absorb collision industry, APTA’s current passenger rail energy before failing.5 As discussed structure, and the supporting car body equipment standards include structure, shall support the post up to its below, in August 2005, APTA’s PRESS deformation requirements, which ultimate capacity. The ultimate shear and C&S Subcommittee accepted a revised prescribe how these vertical members tensile strength of the connecting fasteners or ‘‘severe deformation’’ standard for should perform when overloaded quasi- welds shall be sufficient to resist the forces collision and corner posts. The standard statically. causing the deformation, so that shear and includes requirements for minimum tensile failure of the fasteners or welds shall energy absorption and maximum 1. FRA-Sponsored Dynamic Testing in not occur, even with severe deformation of deflection. The standard thereby 2002 the post and its connecting and supporting eliminates a deficiency in the 1999 Two full-scale, grade-crossing impact structural elements. APTA standards by specifying test tests were conducted in June 2002 as (See paragraph 4.1 of APTA SS–C&S– criteria to objectively measure ‘‘severe part of an ongoing series of FRA- 013–99, and paragraph 3.1 of APTA SS– deformation’’ (or large deformation). sponsored crashworthiness tests of C&S–014–99.) Although the term passenger rail equipment carried out ‘‘severe deformation’’ was not 5 Mayville, R., Johnson, K., Tyrell, D., with the support of the Volpe Center at specifically defined in the APTA Stringfellow, R., ‘‘Rail Vehicle Cab Car Collision and FRA’s Transportation Technology standards, discussions with APTA Corner Post Designs According to APTA S–034 ‘‘ Requirements,’’ American Society of Mechanical Center (TTC) in Pueblo, CO. The technical staff led to specifying severe Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2003–44114, November purpose of these two tests was to deformation’’ in the SOA design as a 2003. This document is available on the Volpe evaluate incremental improvements in horizontal crush of the corner and Center’s Web site at: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/ the crashworthiness performance, in collisions posts for a distance equal to docs/2003/rail_cw_2003_11.pdf. All of the published Volpe Center papers and reports on rail highway-rail grade-crossing collision the posts’ depth. Some failure of the equipment crashworthiness can be found at: scenarios, of modern corner and parent material in the posts was http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/pubs-crash.html. collision post designs when compared allowable, but no failure would be

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

allowed in the welded connections, as connection that was better able to resist initial test conditions and the integrity of the welded connections torsional loads transferred to the anti- instrumentation test requirements. prevents complete separation of the telescoping plate. The impact speed of approximately 14 posts from their connections. mph for both tests was chosen so that An additional difference in the b. Dynamic Impact Testing there would be significant intrusion designs was the exclusion of the As noted, two full-scale, grade- (more than 12 inches) into the stepwells for the SOA design, to allow crossing impact tests were conducted in engineer’s cab in the test of the 1990s for extended side sills from the body June 2002. In each test a single cab car design, and limited intrusion (less than bolster to the end/buffer beam. By impacted a 40,000-pound steel coil 12 inches) in the test of the SOA design. bringing the side sills forward to This 12-inch deformation metric was resting on a frangible table at a nominal support the end/buffer beam directly at chosen to demarcate the amount of speed of 14 mph. The steel coil was the corners, the end/buffer beam can be intrusion that would leave sufficient situated such that it impacted the corner developed to a size similar to the one for space for the engineer to ride out the the 1990s design. In fact, recent cab car post above the cab car’s end sill. The collision safely. procurements have provided for principal difference between the two During the full-scale test of the 1990s elimination of the stepwells at the ends tests involved the end frame design design, the impact force transmitted to of the cars. tested: In one test, the cab car was fitted the end structure exceeded the corner As compared to the 1990s design, the with the 1990s end frame design; in the post’s predicted strength, and the corner SOA design had the following other, the cab car was fitted with the post separated from its upper enhancements: more substantial corner SOA end frame design. attachment. Upon impact, the corner posts; a bulkhead sheet connecting the Prior to the tests, the crush behaviors post began to hinge near the contact collision and corner posts, extending of the cars and their dynamic responses point with the coil; subsequently, from the floor to the transverse member were simulated with car crush and tearing at the upper connection connecting the posts; and a longer side collision dynamics models. The car occurred. The intensity of the impact sill that extended along the engineer’s crush model was used to determine the ultimately resulted in the failure of the compartment to the end beam, removing force/crush characteristics of the corner upper connection of the corner post to the presence of a stepwell. In addition posts, as well as their modes of the anti-telescoping plate. More than 30 to changes in the cross-sectional sizes deformation.6 The collision dynamics inches of deformation occurred and the and thickness of some structural model was used to predict the extent of survivable space for the engineer was members, another change in the SOA crush of the corner posts as a function lost. design was associated with the of impact velocity, as well as predict the By contrast, during the test of the connection details for the corner posts. three-dimensional accelerations, SOA end frame design, the corner post In comparison to the corner posts, the velocities, and displacements of the cars remained attached. The maximum collision posts of both the 1990s and and coil.7 Pre-test analyses of the rearward deformation measured was SOA designs penetrated both the top models were used in determining the approximately 9 inches. The results of and bottom flanges of both the end/ this test showed that the SOA end frame buffer beam and the anti-telescoping 6 Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Zolock, J., ‘‘Rail-Car design is sufficient to prevent the plate. This was based upon typical Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Car Crush,’’ American engineer from being crushed in such an practice in the early 1990s for the 1990s Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. impact. design, and a provision in the APTA JRC2003–1656, April 2003. This document is standard for the SOA design. Yet, the available on the Volpe Center’s Web site at: c. Analysis http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2003/ corner posts differed in that the corner rail_cw_2003_4.pdf. The SOA design performed very posts for the 1990s design did not 7 Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., ‘‘Rail Car closely to pre-test predictions made by penetrate both the top and bottom Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Collision Dynamics,’’ the finite element and collision flanges of the end/buffer and anti- American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper dynamics models. See Figure 2, below. No. JRC2003–1655, April 2003. This document is telescoping beams, while those in the available on the Volpe Center’s Web site at: As noted, the SOA design crushed SOA design did. The SOA design http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2003/ approximately 9 inches in the therefore had a significantly stiffer rail_cw_2003_3.pdf. longitudinal direction.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1189

Pre-test analyses for the 1990s design 2. Industry-Sponsored Quasi-Static up contained all structural elements, but using the car crush model and collision Testing in 2001 did not contain the corner post rub dynamics model were in close plates, the plymetal floor, any interior agreement with the measurements taken While FRA’s full-scale, dynamic finishing, windows, doors, bonnet, or during the actual testing of the cab car testing program was being planned and similar components. end frame built to this design. The pre- conducted with input from key industry b. Quasi-Static Testing test analyses also nearly overlay the test representatives, several passenger results for the force/crush characteristic railroads were incorporating in Load was applied at incrementally of the SOA design. As a result, FRA procurement specifications the then- increasing levels with hydraulic jacks believes that both sets of models are newly promulgated Federal regulations while being measured by load cells at capable of predicting the modes of and industry standards issued in 1999. the rear of the longitudinal end frame structural deformation and the total Specifically, both LIRR and Metro-North members. Initially, the elastic limit was amount of energy consumed during a had contracted with Bombardier for the determined for the post, and then the collision. Careful application of finite- development of a new MU locomotive large deformation test was conducted. element modeling allows accurate design, the M7 series. Bombardier The test was stopped, for safety prediction of the crush behavior of rail conducted a series of qualifying quasi- considerations, prior to full separation car structures. static tests on a mock-up, front-end of the collision post with the end/buffer Both the methodologies used to structure of an M7, including a severe beam. design the cab car end frames and the deformation test of the collision post. In The maximum deflection in the results of the tests show that significant addition to the severe deformation test, collision post before yielding occurred increases in rail passenger equipment the other end frame members were also at a position 42 inches above the end crashworthiness can be achieved if tested elastically at the enhanced loads beam, near the top of the plates used to greater consideration is given to the specified in the APTA standards. The reinforce the collision post. The plastic manner in which structural elements severe deformation qualification test shape the collision post acquired during deform when overloaded. Modern was conducted on February 20, 2001. testing was ‘V’-shaped, with a plastic methods of analysis can accurately a. Test Article Design hinge occurring at 42 inches above the predict structural crush (severe end beam. Some cracking and material deformation) and consequently can be The mock-up test article was failure occurred at the connection of the used with confidence to develop developed for the front end of an M7 post with the end beam. The anti- structures that collapse in a controlled cab car. The first 19.25 feet of the car telescoping plate was pulled down manner. Modern testing techniques was fabricated with great fidelity roughly three inches, and load was shed allow the verification of the crush between the car’s body bolster and the to the corner post via the shelf member behavior of such structures. extreme most forward end. The mock- and the bulkhead sheet. The shape that

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.001 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

the collision post experienced was very analysis predictions of the dynamic were conducted of both the SOA end similar to what was observed from the performance of the SOA corner post frame and the M7 end frame under both dynamic testing of the SOA corner post, closely matched test measurements.8 A dynamic and quasi-static test conditions as discussed above. similar analysis of the corner post was to assess the equivalency of the two performed on the M7 design, and the different tests for demonstrating c. Analysis results compared closely with the SOA compliance with the severe deformation Under FRA sponsorship, the Volpe design test and analysis results. Overall, criteria. For both sets of tests, the modes Center, with cooperation from the crashworthiness performance of the of deformation were very similar at the Bombardier, conducted non-linear, large collision posts of the SOA and M7 same extent of longitudinal deformation analyses to evaluate the designs were found to be essentially the displacement, and the locations where performance of the cab car corner and same, and the M7 corner post design material failure occurred were also collision posts of the SOA end frame was even found to perform better than similar. In addition, the predicted force- design and the Bombardier M7 design the SOA corner post design. This latter crush characteristics showed reasonable under dynamic test conditions. One of difference in performance was agreement within the repeatability of the purposes of this research was to attributable to the sidewall support in the tests. Figure 3, below, shows a determine whether the level of the M7 design, which was not present comparison of the deformation mode for crashworthiness demonstrated by the in the SOA design. the M7’s collision post, as observed SOA prototype design could actually be Having established the fidelity of the from the quasi-static testing that was achieved by a general production models and modeling approach, a conducted and as predicted for the design—here, the M7 design. Pre-test number of comparative simulations dynamic loading condition.

3. FRA-Sponsored Dynamic and Quasi- demonstrating energy absorption of the a. Test Article Design Static Testing in 2008 collision and corner posts. The tests focused on the collision and corner The SOA design was originally In 2008, a full-scale dynamic test and posts individually because of their developed for the Budd Pioneer car for two quasi-static tests were performed on critical positions in protecting the the 2002 dynamic impact testing. For the posts of an SOA end frame. These engineer and passengers in a collision the testing in 2008, only a Budd M1 car tests were designed to evaluate the where only the superstructure, not the was available, so the design had to be dynamic and quasi-static methods for underframe, is loaded. modified to fit a Budd M1. The design

8 Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Zolock, J. Brassard, J., Cab Car End Frame Designs,’’ American Society of Volpe Center’s Web site at: http:// ‘‘Review of Severe Deformation Recommended Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. RTD2005–70043, www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2005/ Practice Through Analyses—Comparison of Two March 2005. This document is available on the rail_cw_2005_03.pdf.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1191

of an end frame for retrofit onto the cab b. Dynamic Testing of a Collision Post between the post and the anti- end of a Budd Pioneer car was modified For this test, a 14,000-pound cart telescoping beam remained intact. The to account for differences between the impacted a standing car at a speed of connection between the post and the two car designs. In addition, 18.7 mph. The cart had a rigid coil buffer beam did not completely reinforcements to the M1 car body and shape mounted on the leading end that separate; however, the forward flange connections from the end frame to the concentrated the impact load on the and both side webs fractured. The post car body were designed and fabricated. car’s collision post. The test was itself did not completely fail. There was The design of the SOA end frame conducted against the NPRM’s proposed material failure in the back and the itself required only a few modifications requirements for protecting the sides of the post at the impact location. to adapt to the M1 car body. Due to the engineer’s space—namely, that there be Overall, the end frame was successful in rounded nature of the M1 car body as no more than 10 inches of permanent, absorbing energy and preserving space longitudinal deformation and none of compared to the Pioneer car body, the for the engineer and the passengers. the attachments of any of the structural Figure 4 depicts three deformation lateral extent of the anti-telescoping members separate. beam was changed slightly so that it states from the dynamic test: initial During the test, the collision post contact of the crash cart with the end extended beyond the corner post by 1.5 deformed approximately 7.4 inches and frame, the greatest intrusion of the end inches, as compared to 1.0 inches for absorbed approximately 138,000 foot- frame, and the final deformation state. the Pioneer car. pounds of energy. The attachment

c. Quasi-Static Testing of Collision and collision post, it was reacted through locations were within specification for Corner Posts the couplers. The mode of deformation these posts. However, there is some A quasi-static collision post test was in the quasi-static collision post test was flexibility with the location of the gusset run to compare the quasi-static and the very similar to the mode of deformation relative to the location to the shelf tab. dynamic performance requirements seen in the dynamic collision post test. In both the dynamic and quasi-static proposed in the NPRM and to The collision post pulled down on the tests, the fracture occurred at the demonstrate the efficacy of the quasi- anti-telescoping beam. The post was location of both the gusset and the shelf static test method. The NPRM proposed loaded past 15 inches of deformation welds. The rigid gusset did not allow that the collision post absorb at least and did eventually fail completely in the post to oval as it deformed, causing 135,000 foot-pounds of energy in no the middle. The collision post fractured the fracture at the back of the post. as it separated from the buffer beam. more than 10 inches of longitudinal, Attention turned to conducting a test permanent deformation. Load was After 11 inches of crush, the post had absorbed 110,000 foot-pounds of energy. of the corner post. The NPRM proposed applied with the same fixture for the that the corner post absorb at least dynamic test. This fixture had a Based on the unloading characteristic 120,000 foot-pounds of energy with no diameter of 48 inches and a width of 36 measured during the test, 11 inches of more than 10 inches of permanent, inches. The fixture was made of a thick, crush is approximately equal to 10 longitudinal deformation. The same stiff material and reinforced so that it inches of permanent deformation. Since did not deform or absorb energy. the collision post and end frame were fixture was used for this test as for the Longitudinal string potentiometers at supposed to absorb 135,000 foot-pounds collision post testing. The fixture was several locations recorded the of energy in 10 inches of permanent centered on the corner post. In response deformation of the post. Four load cells, deformation, but only absorbed 110,000 to the results of the quasi-static test of connected in parallel, measured the foot-pounds of energy for that distance, the collision post, the shelf was load being applied into the post. The the test article did not pass the test redesigned so that the tab was removed force and the displacement were cross- requirements. and the depth of the shelf was plotted and the integral was used to Design details warranted a closer look decreased. This reduced the number of calculate the energy absorbed during the in determining why the test was welds at the corner and back of the post. test. unsuccessful. The specimens taken at However, because the corner post was The test car was coupled to a reaction the location of the fracture revealed that not designed with internal gussets, car. As the load from the hydraulic ram an internal gusset on the post coincided gusset design details did not need to be was introduced to the car through the with an exterior shelf tab. The gusset addressed.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.003 1192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

In the quasi-static corner post test, the 2008 as part of the FRA program— which the energy is applied is different, end frame deformed as expected and dynamic impact testing of a collision and the setup of the two types of tests absorbed energy while deforming. The post, and quasi-static load testing of a is different. As demonstrated by the anti-telescoping beam was pulled down collision post and a corner post. tests conducted by Bombardier, quasi- significantly and the shelf and bulkhead Analysis of the results of the two static tests can be conducted by rail were deformed. The connection collision post tests revealed the need for equipment manufacturers at their own between the corner post and the buffer revisions to both the design of some key facilities. Dynamic tests require a beam fractured, but the post did not end frame components and to key segment of railroad track with separate completely. Also, the material failure parameters. Using the appropriate wayside facilities; there are connection between the shelf and the revised model, pre-test predictions for few such test tracks available. post fractured, but the post itself did not the outcome of the corner post test were Nevertheless, dynamic tests do not fracture. The post and end frame found to be in very good agreement with require detailed knowledge of the car absorbed 136,000 foot-pounds of energy the actual test results. structure to be tested, and allow for a in 11 inches of crush. After elastic Overall, the results of the tests in wide range of structural designs. Quasi- recoil, 11 inches of crush is the comparison with their pretest analyses static tests require intimate knowledge equivalent of 10 inches of permanent show that, at this time, actual testing is of the structure being tested, to assure deformation; thus, the test was necessary to demonstrate performance. appropriate support and loading successful. However, as modeling methods improve conditions, and development of quasi- The testing program demonstrated and are shown to predict failure and static test protocols requires repeatable methods for assessing the energy absorption more accurately, assumptions about the layout of the energy-absorbing capability of end there is the potential that use of analysis structure, confining structural designs. frame structures. These methods alone will in the future be acceptable for In addition, dynamic tests more closely include both dynamic and quasi-static demonstrating crashworthiness approximate accident conditions than tests where energy absorption and performance. quasi-static tests do. permanent deformation are used as In August 2005, APTA’s PRESS C&S F. Approaches for Specifying Large limiting criteria. The tests also show the Subcommittee accepted a revised Deformation Requirements improved crashworthiness of the SOA ‘‘severe deformation’’ standard for design. As discussed above, APTA’s initial collision and corner posts. The standard ‘‘severe deformation’’ standard for corner includes requirements for minimum d. Analysis and collision posts, published in 1999, energy absorption and maximum Analysis is a crucial part of did not contain specific methodologies deflection. The form of the standard is conducting a full-scale test. Based on or criteria for demonstrating compliance largely based on the testing done by the results of the 2002 full-scale with the standard. Consequently, the Bombardier, and therefore is quasi- dynamic test in which a heavy steel coil dynamic tests performed by FRA and static. The standard eliminates a impacted the corner post of an SOA end the Volpe Center, static tests performed deficiency of the 1999 standard by frame design, some fracture was by members of the rail industry, and specifying test criteria to objectively expected in certain key end frame analyses conducted by the Volpe Center measure ‘‘severe deformation.’’ The components during the 2008 tests. For and its contractors all helped to develop standard can be readily applied to this reason, a material failure model, the base of information needed to conventional flat-nosed cab cars and based on the Bao-Wierzbicki fracture identify the types of analyses and test MU locomotives but is more difficult to criterion, was implemented in the finite methodologies to use. Further, apply to shaped-nosed cab cars and MU element model of the car end frame evaluation of the test data, with the locomotives or those with CEM designs, using ABAQUS/Explicit. The finite analyses providing a supporting or both. element model with material failure was framework, allowed development of In addition, APTA as well as several used to assess the effect of fracture on appropriate criteria to demonstrate equipment manufacturers have the deformation behavior of car end compliance. expressed an interest in maintaining the structures during quasi-static loading The principal criteria developed presence of a stairwell on the side of the and dynamic impact and, in particular, involve energy absorption through end cab car or MU locomotive opposite from the ability of such structures to absorb frame deformation and the maximum where the locomotive engineer is energy. amount of that deformation. As shown situated. This feature enables multi- The material failure model was by FRA and industry testing, energy can level boarding from both low and higher implemented in ABAQUS/Explicit for be imparted to conventional flat-nosed platforms. As such, FRA and the APTA use with shell elements. A series of cab cars and MU locomotives either PRESS C&S Subcommittee worked preliminary calculations was first dynamically or quasi-statically. As together to develop language associated conducted to assess the effects of shown by Volpe Center analyses, with providing a safety equivalent to the element type and mesh refinement on currently available engineering tools can requirements stipulated for cab car and the deformation and fracture behavior of be used to predict the results of such MU locomotive corner posts in terms of structures similar to those found on cab tests. Given the complexity of such energy absorption and end frame car and MU locomotive end frames, and analyses, and commensurate deformation. The Subcommittee agreed to demonstrate that the Bao-Wierzbicki uncertainties, there is a benefit to that for this arrangement there is failure model can be effectively applied maintaining dynamic testing as an sufficient protection afforded by the using shell elements. alternative for evaluating compliance presence of two corner posts (an end Model parameters were validated with any ‘‘severe deformation’’ standard. corner post ahead of the stepwell and an through comparison to the results of the There are tradeoffs between quasi- internal corner post behind the 2002 testing. Material strength and static and dynamic testing of cab car stepwell) that are situated in front of the failure parameters were derived from and MU locomotive end frames. Both occupied space. The load requirements test data for A710 steel. The model was sets of tests prescribe a minimum stipulated for such posts differ in that then used to simulate the three full- amount of energy for end frame the longitudinal requirements are not scale tests that were conducted during deformation. However, the manner in equal to the transverse requirements.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1193

This in effect changes the shape of these but not exceeding 150 mph (i.e., Tier II builder and purchaser, but no test posts so that they are not equal in both passenger equipment under part 238), methodology or criteria are provided.) width and height. For the end corner the equipment must be designed with a Dynamic performance criteria place post ahead of the stepwell, the CEM system to dissipate kinetic energy fewer constraints on the layout of the longitudinal loading requirements are during a collision, see § 238.403, and cab car or MU locomotive end structure smaller than the transverse ones. The Amtrak’s Acela Express trainsets were and allow the energy-absorption opposite is true for the corner post designed with a CEM system complying capability of the crush zone(s) to be behind the stepwell. It was agreed to with this requirement. expressly taken into account in the allow for the combined contribution of FRA notes that Metrolink is in the design of the collision and corner post both sets of corner posts, together, to process of procuring a new fleet of cars structures. As noted, this final rule provide an equivalent level of utilizing CEM technology. As part of its allows for the application of dynamic protection to that required for corner response to the Glendale, CA train performance requirements for collision posts in standard cab car and MU incident on January 26, 2005, Metrolink and corner post structures of cab cars locomotive configurations. See the determined that CEM design and MU locomotives. FRA believes that discussion in the Section-by-Section specifications should be included in the results of the crashworthiness Analysis on the structural requirements this planned procurement, and, in research discussed above provide strong for cab cars and MU locomotives with coordination with APTA, approached support for including dynamic a stairwell located on the side of the FRA and FTA to draft such performance requirements as equipment opposite from where the specifications. In turn, FRA and FTA alternatives to the quasi-static locomotive engineer controls the train. formed the ad hoc Crash Energy requirements for collision and post requirements in this rule, and that it is G. Crash Energy Management and the Management Working Group in May 2005. This working group included particularly necessary to address what Design of Front End Frame Structures of FRA believes will be a growing number Cab Cars and MU Locomotives government engineers and participants from the rail industry, including of cab cars and MU locomotives Research has shown that passenger passenger railroads, suppliers, labor utilizing CEM designs. rail equipment crashworthiness in train- organizations, and industry consultants, to-train collisions can be significantly H. European Standard EN 15227 FCD, many of whom also participated in the increased if the equipment structure is Crashworthiness Requirements for Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force. engineered to crush in a controlled Railway Vehicle Bodies manner. One manner of doing so is to The working group developed a detailed In the NPRM, FRA discussed that design sacrificial crush zones into technical specification for crush zones then-preliminary European standard unoccupied locations in the equipment. in passenger cars for Metrolink to prEN 15227 FCD, Crashworthiness These zones are designed to crush include in its procurement Requirements for Railway Vehicle gracefully, with a lower initial force and specification, as well as for other Bodies, included four collision increased average force. With such passenger railroads to include in future scenarios. This standard is no longer crush zones, energy absorption is shared procurements of their own. Metrolink preliminary and is consequently by multiple cars during the collision, released its specification as part of an referred to throughout this document as consequently helping to preserve the invitation for bid, and then awarded the EN 15227, without the preliminary ‘‘pr’’ integrity of the occupied areas. While contract to manufacture the equipment designation. Collision Scenario 3 of the developed principally to protect to Rotem, a division of Hyundai, now European standard involves a ‘‘train unit occupants in train-to-train collisions, Hyundai Rotem Company (Rotem). front end impact with a large road such crush zones can also potentially Rotem has developed a shaped-nose, vehicle on a level crossing.’’ The significantly increase crashworthiness CEM design for new Metrolink cab cars. standard requires commuter and in highway-rail grade-crossing Because of the shaped-nose, it is more intercity trains to be able to sustain an collisions.9 difficult to engineer structural members impact with a deformable object The approach of including crush identifiable as full-height collision posts weighing 33 kips (15,000 kg) at a speed zones in passenger rail equipment is and corner posts that extend from the up to 68 mph (110 kph). Calibration termed CEM, and it extends from underframe to the cantrail or roofline at tests on components and numerical current, conventional practice. Current the front end, as specified in the current simulations of the scenario are practice for passenger equipment APTA standard. Consequently, to meet recommended for showing compliance. operated at speeds not exceeding 125 the APTA standard, Rotem has to locate FRA has noted key differences mph (i.e., Tier I passenger equipment the collision and corner posts inboard of between the European standard and the under part 238) requires that the the crush zone, rather than place them dynamic testing collision scenarios that equipment be able to support large loads at the extreme front end of the cab car. FRA proposed for both collision posts without permanent deformation or Further, as currently written, the APTA and corner posts, below, including the failure, but does not specifically address quasi-static standard does not expressly amount of energy involved and the how the equipment behaves when it take into account the energy-absorption character of the object. Assuming that crushes. CEM prescribes that car capability of the crush zone, even if the the mass of the train is more than about structures crush in a controlled manner crush zone would likely be engaged in 25 times as great as the mass of the when overloaded and absorb collision a grade-crossing impact. Although the object (in that the mass of the train energy. In fact, for passenger equipment APTA standard acknowledges the use of roughly corresponds to the mass of a operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph shaped-nose and CEM designs, there commuter train made up of a cab car, remains uncertainty in the standard four coaches, and a locomotive; or made 9 Tyrell, D.C., Perlman, A.B., ‘‘Evaluation of Rail associated with demonstration of up of six MU locomotives), then the Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Strategies,’’ compliance by such designs. (The APTA total energy dissipated in an EN 15227 Transportation Research Record 1825, pp. 8–14, standard does provide that on cars with Collision Scenario 3-impact is 5.0 National Academy Press, 2003. This document is available on the Volpe Center’s Web site at: CEM designs, compliance may be million foot-pounds. The total energy http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2003/ demonstrated either through analysis or absorbed in the collision scenarios rail_cw_2003_12.pdf. testing as agreed to by the vehicle included in this final rule are 135,000

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

foot-pounds for the collision post and frame’s performance in EN15227’s analyzed striking the deformable lorry at 120,000 foot-pounds for the corner post. Collision Scenario 3. 53 mph, resulting in 72,000 ft-kips of initial kinetic energy. The difference in However, in the European standard, the Table 1 impacted object is deformable and the amount of initial kinetic energy potentially absorbs a significant amount Table 1 summarizes a few key involved between the two scenarios was of the available energy; in the collision crashworthiness parameters and results two orders of magnitude. Similarly, the scenarios included in this final rule, the from the testing and analysis conducted. impacting objects were quite different. object is rigid, and virtually all of the Application of the FRA scenario As noted earlier, the FRA scenario energy is absorbed by the cab car or MU involved only one car; whereas the EN provides for a rigid impact object; locomotive. 15227 scenario involved a complete whereas in the EN 15227 scenario, the consist or train unit. The difference in impact object is deformable. In the FRA A recent paper describes the weight of one car, 80 kips, versus that scenario, this resulted in the energy performance of the SOA end frame in of a complete consist, 767 kips, was an being mostly absorbed by the impacted both the FRA and the EN grade-crossing order of magnitude. In the FRA collision post, with virtually no energy collision scenarios.10 Specifically, scenario, the 14-kip impact object was absorbed by the impact object. Whereas testing and analysis of the SOA end tested striking the car at 19 mph, in the EN 15227 scenario, both the first frame’s performance in appendix F’s resulting in 170 ft-kips of initial kinetic car and the impact object absorbed large collision post test scenario was energy. Whereas in the EN 15227 amounts of energy, with very little compared to an analysis of the SOA end scenario, the 767-kip consist was energy absorbed by one collision post.

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF SOA END FRAME PERFORMANCE APPLYING APPENDIX F COLLISION POST STANDARD AND EN 15227 COLLISION SCENARIO 3

Application of EN 15227 collision scenario 3 Parameter Application of Appendix F collision post standard specification

Type of Train ...... Single car: 80 kips ...... Complete train unit: 767 kips. Impact Object ...... Rigid cart: 14 kips ...... Deformable lorry: 33 kips. Impact Speed ...... 19 mph (cart) ...... 53 mph (consist). Initial Kinetic Energy ...... 170 ft-kips ...... 72,000 ft-kips. Energy Absorbed ...... End frame: 138 ft-kips; Cart: ∼0; Collision post: Leading car: 1370 ft-kips; Lorry: 950 ft-kips; Colli- 105 ft-kips. sion post: 89 ft-kips. Pass/Fail Criteria ...... Intrusion <= 10 in., no separation ...... Preserve survival spaces, mean deceleration < 7.5g.

As the table shows in summary form, assumes the use of CEM equipment; and groupings; instead, they are discussed the key parameters of these two can be used to demonstrate compliance directly in the Section-by-Section scenarios are very different, though they through analysis only. Moreover, FRA Analysis or in the Regulatory Impact are both grade-crossing collision believes that its dynamic collision and Notices portion of this final rule. scenarios involving rail vehicles with scenario is not only easier to analyze, A. Technical Comments impact objects. Additionally, comparing but easier to test than the EN 15227 the complexity of the analysis required scenario and imparts more energy to the This section contains the discussion for each scenario, application of the impacted post than in the EN 15227 of technical comments on the NPRM, as FRA scenario is simpler to analyze. In scenario. well as comments closely associated analyzing the FRA scenario, fewer with these technical comments. FRA IV. Discussion of Specific Comments vehicles are involved, initial kinetic has endeavored to group the comments energy is lower, deformations are less, and Conclusions together by issue to the extent possible, and the deformations that result are As noted above, FRA received written rather than by commenter. Please note virtually all in the car and not the comments on the NPRM from that the order in which the comments impact object. representatives of government; various are discussed, whether by issue or by Overall, FRA believes that the organizations, including railroad labor; commenter, is not intended to reflect following conclusions can be drawn railroads; railroad car manufacturers; the significance of the comment raised about the standards in appendix F and railroad engineering firms; and as well or the standing of the commenter. those specified in EN 15227’s Collision as private citizens. The comments can Please also note that following the Scenario 3. The appendix F standards principally be divided into two groups: submission of these written comments, concentrate the load on a single post, comments of a technical nature affecting FRA convened the Task Force and above the underframe; can be applied to the substance of the requirements Working Group to consider and discuss both CEM and non-CEM equipment; and proposed, and comments as to the the comments and to help achieve can potentially be used to demonstrate preemptive effect of the requirements consensus on recommendations for this compliance either through analysis or proposed. FRA found that these final rule. As a result, certain of these testing. The EN 15227 grade-crossing groupings serve the organization of this comments have been superseded by collision specification distributes the final rule, even though some comments changes made in the rule text from the load across the entire end structure; do not fit neatly into either grouping. NPRM to this final rule, and they should imparts a significant amount of load in Please note that certain comments are not necessarily be understood to reflect the underframe and roof structure; not discussed in either of these two the positions of the commenters with

10 Llana, P., ‘‘Structural Crashworthiness Engineers, Paper No. RTDF2009–18030, October, Center’s Web site at: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/ Standards Comparison: Grade-Crossing Collision 2009. This document is available on the Volpe docs/2009/09-18030.pdf. Scenarios,’’ American Society of Mechanical

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1195

respect to the requirements of the final accomplish this energy transfer to the this proposed requirement conflicted rule. Nevertheless, FRA is setting out all crush elements, the end frame must be with the allowance in the NPRM for the of the comments received and is very rigid, which can make meeting the posts to resist loads up to their ultimate responding to each of them here so that severe deformation requirements for the strength. RVB believed that, by FRA’s positions are clearly understood. end frame more difficult to achieve. requiring yield strength in such case, Nonetheless, as long as the system of the ultimate strength of the post would 1. Crash Energy Management structural and CEM elements protecting be much greater than the amount Caltrans raised concern with FRA’s the occupied volume performs well specified. mention of CEM designs in the NPRM, under the dynamic performance FRA understands the complexities believing that no rail equipment that requirements provided in appendix F of introduced by using a CEM design that features a CEM design has been built, this final rule, FRA is confident that behaves significantly differently than a that including CEM in the preamble sufficient protection is provided to conventional cab car or an MU implied that the NPRM included a CEM passengers and crewmembers alike. For locomotive because of its crush zone(s). requirement, and that the implication end frame members inboard of the crush This is one of the reasons FRA proposed that CEM designs may provide for a elements, it is likely that they will serve the option to test such designs higher level of safety would expose as the reaction points for the crush dynamically, and one of the reasons those railroads not employing CEM elements. As in the case of end frame why FRA has included alternative, designs to litigation for not selecting the members outboard of the crush dynamic performance requirements in ‘‘safer’’ design as identified by FRA. elements, to support the load this final rule. FRA has modified the FRA notes that Amtrak’s Acela introduced by the crush elements the dynamic performance requirements in Express trainsets use CEM, and CEM is end frame may have to be very rigid. As the final rule from those proposed in the used in European and other vehicles. a result, meeting the severe deformation NPRM, and FRA believes that these FRA does believe that, all other things requirements for the end frame may also modifications will help to address being equal, CEM designs are superior be more difficult to achieve. Yet, again, concerns with applying the in crashworthiness to conventional as long as the system of structural and requirements to CEM designs. designs. Yet, as FRA stated in the CEM elements protecting the occupied RVB also commented that since, by preamble to the NPRM, FRA’s volume performs well under the definition, a CEM system requires a recognition that fuller application of dynamic performance requirements structure that facilitates controlled CEM technologies to cab cars and MU provided in appendix F of this final collapse of the crush zone(s), the locomotives could enhance their safety rule, FRA is confident that the system proposal would result in a much higher would not nullify the preemptive effect provides sufficient protection for load imparted to the underframe than by of the standards arising from the passengers and crewmembers. the 800,000-pound compression load rulemaking. FRA continually strives to Additionally, FRA would like to make requirement, exceeding the yield enhance railroad safety, has an active clear that the energy-absorption strength of the structure. RVB claimed research program focused on doing so, requirements in this rulemaking should that this was another area of significant and sets safety standards that it believes not be confused with energy absorption over-design that was unaddressed in the are necessary and appropriate for the as part of a CEM approach. While NPRM. RVB added that by disallowing time that they are issued with a view to inclusion of energy-absorption correction of static strength amending those standards as requirements is consistent with FRA’s requirements as they are taken up by circumstances change. FRA has approach to incrementally build on CEM systems, a vehicle would be imposed, and will continue to impose, traditional crashworthiness heavier than it needs to be, use more the requirements that it deems requirements, and whereas CEM is an energy to operate, and exert more force necessary for the safe operation of cab advanced crashworthiness approach, on wheels and rails that would increase cars and MU locomotives in all of the FRA did not intend that the energy- maintenance costs for equipment and configurations in which they will be absorption requirements in this track. operated. FRA is not requiring CEM in rulemaking be considered part of a CEM FRA believes that the commenter is this final rule. approach. Instead, FRA’s inclusion of incorrect in its assertions. FRA agrees RVB also raised concerns with the energy-absorption requirements in this that for CEM designs the overall average NPRM for its application to CEM rulemaking is intended to address load that the structure must resist may designs. RVB asked why the ‘‘static traditional cab car and MU locomotive exceed 800,000 pounds. However, this strength’’ requirements had to be met if designs that have very strong load is typically spread over a the CEM requirements for energy underframes with relatively weaker significantly larger area than just the absorption are met. RVB stated that the superstructures, for which it is vitally line of draft of the vehicle, as specified required amount of energy can be important to provide protection to for vehicles not utilizing CEM designs. absorbed by CEM structures using crewmembers and passengers in the Because the capacity of a vehicle considerably smaller collision and event that the superstructure is incorporating a CEM design to resist corner posts. impacted. FRA is incorporating mature compression loads elastically may be FRA understands that there are technology and design practice to taken into account, FRA does not potential alternative arrangements using extend from linear-elastic requirements believe that this will result in over- CEM that may place the end frame to elastic-plastic requirements together design of the vehicle. In addition, FRA structure outboard of the crush elements with descriptions of allowable wishes to dispel the belief that a heavier or behind the crush elements. If the end deformations without complete failure vehicle would be necessary to meet the frame is situated outboard of the crush of the system. requirements proposed in the NPRM elements (or crash energy absorbers), RVB additionally commented that in and those contained in this final rule. then the end frame will likely serve as the NPRM the collision and corner posts Crashworthiness features from clean- the means for assuring planar must be designed for yield strength in sheet designs can occupy the same introduction of the load into the crush the case where the posts are behind the space as other material and not weigh in elements, allowing them to react in a CEM structure and used as support for excess of the structure(s) being replaced. progressive, controlled collapse. To the CEM structure. RVB believed that There is considerable leeway in

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

designing such systems so that no the commenter may not in itself speeds where the amount of energy additional weight is required. Moreover, demonstrate that the superstructure has required to be dissipated is too large for the vehicle body structure itself the strength to protect against the any vehicle design to survive a direct typically accounts for only between 25 collision scenarios addressed in this impact. Yet, with use of advanced to 35 percent of the final weight of a rulemaking. In such a dynamic test of a system designs such as Positive Train vehicle, which minimizes the CEM structural system, the entire end Control (PTC) and CEM, the risk may significance of any weight added to the structure of the vehicle would potentially be minimized, and FRA vehicle to comply with the requirements potentially absorb all of the collision would consider such cases individually of this final rule. load. Yet, this final rule specifically in the context of the particular RVB further commented that one targets grade-crossing collision environment in which the equipment means of recognizing a CEM vehicle scenarios where only portions of the would operate. addressing the static end strength superstructure are loaded. It is therefore In its comments on the NPRM, requirements would be for this part 238 believed that analysis and component Caltrain stated that it would be far more to specify the minimum amount of testing, not a full-scale test alone, would appropriate for FRA to define a risk energy that must be absorbed by each be necessary to verify the design of a assessment methodology and end of a vehicle in a train in a specified complete CEM system. prescriptions for addressing risk, letting collision scenario. According to RVB, In its comments, RVB stated that the designers provide alternatives such as dynamic testing of the entire crush zone NPRM introduced requirements that CEM that deliver the required or testing of the critical crush zone would make manufacturers design to performance. Caltrain asked why a elements, in conjunction with suitable the actual strength of some components collision post inboard of a CEM system analysis, would be required to confirm rather than rely on the yield stress as a would be required to resist the same compliance, and acceptance criteria measure of strength. RVB believed that load as a collision post where there is would include verification that (i) the this approach is sensible, particularly as no CEM system. Caltrain stated that required minimum energy has been CEM systems are introduced, in that presumably the load would be reduced absorbed, (ii) the occupied volume is such systems rely on controlled (plastic) as the CEM system performs its not compromised, and (iii) climbing/ deformation and operation at the function, so that a substantially lighter telescoping does not occur under the maximum strength (load) capacity of collision post could be used to protect collision scenario. For a CEM vehicle, structural members in collisions. the passenger space, if the CEM system RVB believed that this should be in Nevertheless, RVB believed that there does not otherwise eliminate altogether place of the specific strength are still numerous transportation the need for an interior collision post. requirements for the collision and requirements that are based on yield Caltrain believed that if it is the intent corner posts, and allow evaluation of strength and that these impose of FRA to provide this level of the car ends as a system. constraints on the design of CEM flexibility, FRA should make this clear. FRA recognizes the possibilities members that may not be sensible, It is indeed FRA’s intent to provide raised by the commenter. FRA intends including the anti-climbing arrangement flexibility for vehicle designs with CEM to work with the APTA PRESS C&S and the collision and corner post load features. In the final rule, FRA has Subcommittee to consolidate knowledge cases for application points well above added appendix F to part 238 to provide gained from the Metrolink CEM design the underframe. According to RVB, FRA dynamic performance requirements as effort to support development of such should consider moving to a true alternatives to both the collision and criteria. Inclusion of such criteria in this strength approach for all components as corner post quasi-static requirements. part 238 would be the subject of a it stated is being done in much of the These dynamic performance separate rulemaking activity, however, structural engineering community. requirements specify the performance of and such criteria are not included in FRA notes that the commenter is the end frame, were prepared with CEM this final rule. focused on CEM systems for which the designs in mind, and provide the RVB additionally commented that the rule will probably not be applied for designer leeway in choosing how that NPRM suggested that a manufacturer some time, and, if sooner, for systems performance will be achieved. with a CEM system may choose to FRA would have to review individually Nonetheless, FRA is not defining a risk conduct two dynamic tests instead of because such systems are sufficiently assessment methodology and conducting quasi-static tests on the different from conventional designs. prescriptions for addressing risk, as an individual components. RVB believed The requirements based on yield alternative to the collision and corner the practical situation is that the strength work well for non-CEM designs post quasi-static requirements. FRA structure needed to support the CEM and facilitate their testing and use. believes that appendix F to part 238 system would almost certainly meet the RVB also commented on FRA’s provides the flexibility needed while quasi-static requirements proposed in statement in the NPRM that an energy- assuring safety with more certainty than the NPRM. According to RVB, if a absorption requirement of 5 megajoules by performance of a risk assessment dynamic test were to be conducted for (MJ) will effectively prevent a cab car alone. a CEM system, it would seem to serve from being used in the lead position for the public better to conduct a dynamic Tier II equipment. RVB believed that 2. Dynamic Performance Requirements test that verifies the performance of the this magnitude of energy absorption is FRA received a number of comments entire CEM system, not just for how it feasible for cab cars. on its proposal to include dynamic protects against a steel coil. FRA recognizes that advancements performance requirements as an option As noted above, FRA plans on have been made in the ability of CEM to demonstrate compliance with the working with the industry to address systems to absorb energy. However, FRA severe deformation requirements for the issue of more comprehensive continues to believe that for operational collision and corner posts. In addition requirements for CEM systems. speeds in excess of 125 mph, as a rule to inviting general comment on the However, with regard to specific of general applicability for our nation’s proposal, FRA invited specific comment application of the requirements of this railroads, no passengers should be on the dynamic testing collision final rule, a dynamic test of a CEM allowed in the lead vehicle. Tier II scenarios included in the proposed rule, structural system as contemplated by passenger equipment can operate at including suggestions for any alternative

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1197

collision scenario or way to address requirements of this final rule and As provided in the final rule, FRA possible future designs. FRA also address APTA’s concerns. makes clear that the occupied volume invited specific comment whether this APTA also mentioned that in the must be protected for its full height, final rule should provide for all cab cars NPRM FRA stated that alternative, utilizing either the quasi-static or the and MU locomotives to be tested dynamic performance requirements are dynamic performance requirements. dynamically to demonstrate necessary because shaped-nose designs FRA expects that for traditional flat- compliance—whether or not they have may not have readily identifiable, full- nosed designs, the occupied volume a shaped-nosed design or a CEM height corner and collision posts. APTA will be protected for its full height by design—and, if so, whether the collision stated that, although FRA referred to the means of full-height collision and scenarios included in the proposed rule CRM and Rotem designs as potential corner posts. Yet, for other designs, this are appropriate or whether another examples of shaped-nose designs, both protection of the occupied volume for collision scenario would be. these designs include easily identifiable, its full height could be achieved by the CPUC supported FRA’s intent to full-height collision and corner posts performance of the entire end frame allow full-scale crash testing as an behind the shaped nose. According to acting together to prevent intrusion and alternative to quasi-static testing to APTA, all evidence points to having absorb energy. FRA believes that there determine the crashworthiness of a collision and corner posts up to their are many potential ways of providing prototype cab car or MU locomotive. full height as key design features to protection for the full height of the APTA expressed support for FRA’s protect the engineer and passengers occupied volume, and this is reflected approach to bring the Federal structural from front-end collisions. in the final rule. requirements for cab cars and MU FRA believes that the dynamic In its comments on the NPRM, RVB locomotives up to current industry performance requirements in this final stated that use in dynamic testing of a standards, including quasi-static tests rule allow in particular for innovative proxy object that is essentially a steel with specific pass/fail requirements to designs that protect the occupied coil has a historical basis resulting from demonstrate the ability of collision and volume for its full height, even without only a few accidents. RVB believed that the European approach of using a proxy corner posts to undergo severe what would be identified as full-height vehicle would be more sensible and that deformations prior to failure. (APTA did collision and corner posts. Whether or it was not clear why FRA would resist advise that FRA make sure to reference not the Rotem and CRM designs have adopting aspects of that approach that in the preamble and section-by-section full-height collision and corner post are in widespread use in Europe and analysis APTA’s most current industry structures does not address FRA’s other countries. standard, APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. underlying concern that the As discussed earlier, FRA notes that 2—not Rev. 1.) APTA appreciated FRA’s requirements in this final rule would use of a proxy object that deforms (a concern that future vehicles utilizing otherwise be too restrictive without the deformable lorry, e.g.) adds undue CEM designs may require different alternative standards based on dynamic complexity to the analysis of impacts. In treatment in Federal structural testing. For instance, the Stadler Rail addition, development of a proxy object regulations than those with traditional equipment procured by the Capital with a repeatable crush response is, in flat-nosed designs. However, APTA had Metropolitan Transportation Authority itself, a daunting task, and the cost of several concerns about including the (CMTA) in Austin, TX, has no readily developing such an object for each car proposed dynamic test option to identifiable collision or corner post manufacturer is not cost beneficial. accommodate such designs in the final structures and yet has been found to Nevertheless, FRA has modified from rule. Noting that FRA has conducted an behave well under analysis using the the NPRM the manner in which the extensive full-scale collision test dynamic performance requirements in dynamic testing is conducted, to program to gain confidence in this final rule. By not allowing for such address related concerns about use of predictive, finite element analysis design innovation, potential use of the proxy object. Further, FRA believes models and to support development of alternative designs that could that the grade-crossing collision industry standards and rulemaking, demonstrate compliance would be scenarios on which the dynamic testing APTA believed that FRA should not unnecessarily restricted. is based challenges the end frame include a dynamic test scenario in the Further, APTA questioned the safety members in a way that can clearly regulation unless and until similar implications of allowing such key demonstrate the ability of the end frame testing supports it. APTA urged FRA to features as full-height collision and to resist significant impact loads. conduct appropriate testing and defer corner posts to be optional. APTA stated RVB also commented that it was inclusion of dynamic testing in the that all the full-scale testing done by unclear why FRA decided to position regulation, even as an option, until FRA, all the model-validation testing, the proxy object 19 inches from the car those test results are available and and all the knowledge gained of how the center in the collision post dynamic validate the model. end frame performs in collisions pertain test. RVB stated that not all collision As discussed in the ‘‘Technical to equipment with these design features. posts are located 19 inches from the Background’’ portion of this preamble, Until such safety implications are better centerline, and believed it would seem the testing described by APTA has been understood, APTA believed the better to center the proxy object at the completed. In 2008 a full-scale dynamic inclusion of alternative, dynamic post itself. test and two full-scale quasi-static tests performance requirements to be FRA notes that the location of the were performed on the posts of an SOA premature. Overall, APTA was not collision posts is dictated by the need to end frame. These tests were designed to convinced that the proper foundation place the posts at the one-third points evaluate the dynamic and quasi-static has been established for adding these laterally, along the end of the vehicle. methods for demonstrating energy dynamic performance requirements to With this in mind, positioning the proxy absorption by—and graceful the final rule, nor was APTA convinced object 19 inches from the car center is deformation of—the collision and that a single dynamic test demonstrates intended to engage the end frame where corner posts. FRA believes that these full equivalency for the range of the collision post structure will be. tests support inclusion of the quasi- protections provided by traditional full- Nevertheless, because the alternative, static and dynamic performance height collision and corner posts. dynamic performance requirements

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

more fully test the end frame as an occupied space of the vehicle. The was in fact equivalent to that proposed integrated whole rather than as deformable anti-climber can absorb a in the NPRM. Nevertheless, additional individual structural elements, and are significant amount of energy prior to dynamic testing has been performed in not intended to test the strength of an bottoming out even when loaded in an support of the requirements in this final individual element quasi-statically, it is offset manner. Nevertheless, to rule. Specifically, as discussed in the not necessary to specify that the impact minimize the potential for off-axis ‘‘Technical Background’’ section, a be centered on the collision post rotations, FRA has reconsidered use of dynamic test was successfully structure. the standing proxy object specified in conducted on April 16, 2008, and the RVB further commented that the the NPRM to be struck by a moving cab dynamic performance requirements in NPRM seemed to impose essentially the car or MU locomotive, and has specified this final rule are based on the actual same energy-absorption requirements on instead use of a proxy object connected test conditions and amount of collision both the collision and the corner posts to a moving crash cart to strike a energy imparted. in the alternative, dynamic performance standing cab car or MU locomotive. Caltrans also commented that FRA requirements, and RVB was unclear if In its comments on the NPRM, needs to clarify whether full-height this was FRA’s intent. RVB claimed that Caltrain raised concern with the testing collision and corner post tests are there is practically no difference performed by FRA to validate the required if the alternative, dynamic between the 20 and 21 mph impact effectiveness of the proposed collision performance requirements are used, and speeds that were proposed for the and corner post requirements. Caltrain if not, whether FRA has performed a dynamic performance requirements, stated that the 1998 NICTD grade- structural analysis showing that safety asserting that the target speeds used for crossing accident in Portage, IN, was may be maintained in the absence of actual testing would need to be higher recreated with a 40,000-pound steel coil full-height posts. Caltrans cited FRA’s than these values to ensure that the at an impact test speed of 14 mph. statement that dynamic testing is speeds are achieved. Caltrain stated that the test speed used essential as an option for validating car FRA notes that in conducting a to recreate this accident was far lower designs that feature non-flat front ends. dynamic test there are alternative means than in most grade-crossing accidents, Yet, Caltrans believed that current car of imparting impact energy into the and that the test did not actually designs that feature non-flat front ends, front end of the cab car or MU compare the proposed design to one that CRM’s diesel MU locomotive and locomotive. Speed is only one of the was compliant with part 238. Caltrain Metrolink’s new Rotem cab car, both elements that make up impact energy. believed that data from a higher-speed feature full-height collision and corner FRA has taken this fact into account in test, using equipment that is compliant posts. preparing the final rule and restated the with part 238, would be more useful in FRA makes clear that the fact that dynamic performance requirements in evaluating potential solutions. testing collision and corner posts terms of the amount of collision energy As discussed earlier, the SOA design dynamically is provided as an imparted. No specific test speeds are is compliant with part 238 and has been alternative in the final rule does not stated. Yet, the amount of collision tested. Further, the test cited by the mean that protecting the full height of energy is specific for each test of the two commenter was carefully designed to the occupied volume is optional under types of post structures, and each overload only the structure of interest, such circumstances. For traditional end amount of collision energy was carefully and was not intended to replicate the frame designs (i.e., flat-nosed designs) chosen based upon input from industry actual collision speed. Moreover, FRA tested dynamically, full-height collision stakeholders. FRA makes clear that it is emphasizes that in this rulemaking the and corner posts are certainly not not necessary to impart higher levels of agency is taking an incremental optional. Yet, FRA believes that the rule energy than specified in this final rule approach to improving safety by must continue to allow flexibility for to assure that the requirements are met. enhancing the current end frame design other design approaches that may use Of course, these requirements are of cab cars and MU locomotives. As different shapes and structures to minimum standards and may be noted, FRA is separately exploring the protect the full height of the occupied exceeded by the manufacturer. application of CEM to provide volume. For example, FRA notes that Additionally, RVB commented that protection against even higher speed novel designs may effectively prevent the top of the deformable anti-climber of events. intrusion into the occupied volume the FRA CEM-design is approximately In its comments on the NPRM, through application of the concept of 24 inches above the top of the Caltrans stated that any dynamic testing deflection—to deflect objects away from underframe. RVB believed that an requirement, even as an option, should the vehicle. For such design approaches, impact with a circular proxy object be founded in actual testing and full-height collision and corner posts are centered 30 inches above the top of the validation of the variables and proposed not necessarily required, provided, of underframe, as proposed in the NPRM, design criteria. Caltrans mentioned that course, that the occupied volume is could result in a ramp and alter the although FRA has conducted tests that nonetheless protected for its full height. trajectory of the object in an undesirable simulate a collision with a highway FRA has conducted analysis to show manner. As a result, RVB believed it vehicle carrying a roll of coiled steel, that safety can be maintained in the unclear how much energy would the actual tests as conducted had absence of full-height collision and actually be imparted as intended to the significantly lower impact speeds and corner posts. Manufacturers attempting structural elements, and that it may not greater allowable deformation to meet the requirements of this final be prudent to conduct a dynamic test in requirements. Caltrans maintained that rule must perform the detailed this manner for such a design to until a real-time crash test has been structural analyses to show that safety is demonstrate its compliance. conducted and analyzed by FRA that maintained in the absence of these FRA notes that the FRA CEM-design uses identical testing variables, structures. is intended to act as a complete system inclusion of a standard for dynamic In its comments on the NPRM, so that even if a ramp were to form on testing of end frame designs is Bombardier raised a number of concerns the deformable anti-climber, the end premature. with the proposal to include an option frame structure would be able to resist FRA notes that the energy involved in for a dynamic method of demonstrating intrusion by the proxy object into the the earlier testing supporting the NPRM compliance with the proposed severe-

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1199

deformation requirements for collision reasonably achievable for collision and volume for the locomotive engineer. and corner posts. Bombardier believed corner posts, and a paper was published Equivalency of the testing has been the proposal to be contrary to the on this topic. (See ‘‘Review of Severe validated.11 With regard to glazing, FRA recommendation of the Task Force in Deformation Recommended Practice believes that a fuller discussion of developing the NPRM. Bombardier Through Analyses—Comparison of Two glazing is necessary in a separate forum, stated that it supported the general Cab Car End Frame Designs,’’ cited including a discussion of the glazing industry consensus that such dynamic above.) There are various ways to testing cited by the commenter and the performance requirements should not be achieve the impact speeds with the current glazing test requirements. included as an option, contending that precision required for either the Nevertheless, FRA does not believe that the proposed dynamic tests were proposed collision post or corner post the agency is required to conduct such impractical, had not been fully tests, and the speeds were intended to testing on a production design. FRA validated, did not adequately test a be minimum speeds that could be does have the responsibility to realistic production design end exceeded by the manufacturers (as demonstrate that the rules to be structure, raised safety concerns, and FRA’s requirements are safety imposed on the industry are achievable would be costly. FRA will address each minimums). Nonetheless, FRA has and do not impose undue economic comment in turn. revised the dynamic performance costs. Yet, this can be accomplished in Bombardier stated that due to the requirements in this final rule to state different ways, including engineering significantly higher static load design the requirements in terms of collision analysis, prototype testing, and analysis requirements for collision posts energy rather than collision speed. Like of information provided by the industry (compared to corner posts), collision the collision speeds proposed in the on its production designs. This process posts would be much more substantial NPRM, the specified levels of collision was followed in the development of the in size and strength than corner posts. energy may also be exceeded. proposed performance standards However, because the proposed Bombardier also commented that, supporting this final rule. dynamic test defined only a 1.0 mph while FRA had conducted analysis to In addition, Bombardier commented difference between the impact speeds to determine the severe deformation that on several occasions industry test both collision and corner post characteristics of a collision post, no members pointed out to FRA that, while structures, Bombardier believed this dynamic testing had been conducted to the full-scale test of the SOA corner post illustrated the sensitivity in the size of verify the acceptability or practicality of design was valuable to validate specific the post required to resist such a small the dynamic test proposed for collision design features and characteristics, the increase in impact velocity. According posts. Bombardier stated that, while a SOA design did not fully represent a to Bombardier, a 1.0 mph difference in dynamic test had been conducted on the production design. Bombardier stated test speeds would approach the SOA corner post, that test used a that on a production-version end frame accuracy achievable for a full-scale significantly different proxy object mass (flat-nosed), the corner post is set back impact test, and, from a practical (40,000 lbs vs. 10,000 lbs) and different from the collision post in the perspective, would create various impact speed (14 mph vs. 21 mph) than longitudinal direction by about 6 inches technical and commercial problems, that proposed in the NPRM. Bombardier to accommodate car clearance during most likely require re-testing if the maintained that, although FRA analysis curve negotiation, and both the collision actual test speed were only marginally showed these to be ‘‘equivalent’’ tests, and corner posts are connected laterally above or below the target speed. For the actual qualification test proposed in by the lateral shelf and bulkhead. instance, Bombardier claimed that if the the NPRM had never been validated. According to Bombardier, this actual impact speed during the test of a Bombardier compared this situation to arrangement would cause the proxy corner post were 1.0 mph above the the proposed changes to the large-object object to impact the structure between target speed for corner posts (i.e., at the impact test for forward-facing glazing, the collision and corner posts, rather impact speed required to qualify a which the Task Force separately than directly impact the corner post, in collision post) there would be a high considered, stating that FRA predicted a dynamic test of a production-model probability that the corner post would that a test based on energy using a corner post. Bombardier likewise fail and a re-test of another production different mass and impact speed would believed that for a flat-nosed cab car, the end frame would be required. Similarly, be equivalent to the current glazing proxy object would impact the structure Bombardier maintained that if the post requirements but that subsequent tests between the collision and corner posts were tested at a speed slightly below the that were conducted at the request of at 18 inches from the outside of the target value, it may not absorb the industry to validate the proposed vehicle, instead of on the corner post energy required in the proposed requirement confirmed that the (stating, e.g., that the coil would contact regulation and, again, a re-test would proposed tests were not equivalent. the sheathing on a flat-nosed cab car likely be required to verify compliance. Therefore, Bombardier contended that about 41⁄2; inches ahead of the corner FRA notes that the dynamic until FRA conducts and validates the post), and that this would be greater for performance requirements proposed in proposed dynamic tests for both a a non-flat-nosed car. According to the NPRM were intended to be both collision post and a corner post on a Bombardier, this would result in both practical and achievable, as illustrated production-model end frame, it would the collision and corner posts sharing by the fact that the proposed quasi-static be premature to include such the impact load and that it would requirements would have required the requirements in this part. therefore be possible to design a same levels of energy absorption. These As discussed in the ‘‘Technical structure with a weaker corner post than levels of energy absorption were chosen Background’’ section, FRA makes clear after comparing the performance of the that the testing cited by the commenter 11 Priante, M., Llana, P., Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., FRA-developed, SOA end frame with a was completed successfully on April 16, Perlman, A.B., ‘‘A Dynamic Test of a Collision Post production model tested by the 2008, following submission of these of a State-of-the-Art End Frame Design,’’ American commenter. Moreover, the commenter comments. The collision post and the Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. RTDF2008–74020, September 2008. This document worked in conjunction with FRA and entire SOA end frame performed well is available on the Volpe Center’s Web site at: the Volpe Center to assess the degree of under the impact conditions prescribed http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2008/08- incremental improvement that is and maintained the requisite safe 74020.pdf.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

would be required to meet the quasi- As discussed earlier, FRA has because these designs are inherently static requirements. modified the alternative, dynamic required to interact with objects that As FRA has noted, FRA intends that performance requirements in this final threaten the superstructure of the car. the dynamic performance requirements rule so that the testing methodology is Yet, FRA disagrees with not allowing be applicable to end frame designs that safer and more repeatable. Specifically, the industry the alternative to use may not have identifiable corner post or FRA has modified the testing dynamic performance requirements. A collision post structures. For such methodology so that the proxy object is dynamic test does not have to be designs, it is expected that the end set in motion to strike a standing cab car conducted—it is provided as an frame will act more as an integrated or MU locomotive. The resultant speed alternative to demonstrate compliance. whole in resisting an impact load, rather of the cab car or MU locomotive from There are certain designs for which it than having one structural element to being struck by the object is expected to would be difficult, if not impossible, to resist the load by itself. Nonetheless, the be approximately 3 mph. Even if a cart test quasi-statically, such as the Stadler final rule directs that the impact loads connected to the proxy object should Rail equipment procured by the CMTA. be applied to the end frame at the corner derail during the test, the cart is much Moreover, for a quasi-static test in post and collision post locations. FRA lighter than a cab car or MU locomotive, which the front end of the car is not flat, does note that use of a crash cart to and would present a much lesser safety or the post is not centered on the impart these loads is not specifically hazard than would a derailment of those specified impact point, applying a high required by this final rule (even though heavier vehicles. FRA believes that this force could cause the impactor shape to FRA generally assumes that a cart will revised test methodology sufficiently shift vertically or laterally, when all it be used for purposes of the discussion addresses the safety concerns raised by should do is move longitudinally. The in this preamble and in the examples the commenter. benefit of a dynamic test as an provided in the rule text). Use of a crash Bombardier also commented that alternative is that the force would be cart is intended to help achieve a more while the NPRM indicated that a applied quickly and the test could be repeatable testing methodology and dynamic test option is needed to conducted properly, even if the cart better focus the impact loads than address cars with shaped noses or CEM moved laterally or vertically and through use of the proxy object designs, or both, all of the analysis and derailed. proposed in the NPRM, but allowance is testing that had been conducted had Bombardier also commented that it provided for variation in the test set-up been directed to assure that flat-nosed did not agree with the justifications so that a car builder may tailor a test in cab end structures undergo ‘‘graceful,’’ outlined in the NPRM for including a way that is best suited for a particular severe deformation and maximize the alternative, dynamic performance design within the requirements energy absorbed by the post structure requirements. Bombardier stated that specified. before total failure of the top or bottom there was significant discussion in the Bombardier further commented that, post connections occurs. Bombardier NPRM about CEM and European as FRA noted in the NPRM, industry believed that utilizing a dynamic test to standard EN 15227, Crashworthiness members had raised concerns regarding validate a shaped-nose design Requirements for Railway Vehicle the safety of conducting full-scale, significantly deviates from the original Bodies, and its four collision scenarios. dynamic testing of collision and corner intent of the severe-deformation Bombardier believed that extreme care posts. While these members requirements. According to Bombardier, must be taken when comparing such a acknowledged that all testing, including shaped-nose designs would inherently European standard with the severe- that required for quasi-static testing, be much stiffer than flat-nosed designs, deformation requirements proposed in requires attention to safety, Bombardier and as a result would have a much the NPRM and in the current APTA believed that it is much easier to greater tendency to deflect the proxy standards. According to Bombardier, manage the safety of a quasi-static test, object rather than absorb the energy FRA must clarify that EN 15227 is a which is conducted in a controlled lab/ through severe structural deformation. standard for the qualification of a CEM shop environment, than the type of Bombardier therefore maintained that system, where a large quantity of energy dynamic tests proposed in the NPRM. the proposed dynamic test option would is absorbed, and not a severe Noting that during the dynamic test of not be a measure of the severe- deformation standard for collision and the SOA corner post one side of the deformation performance of shaped- corner posts where a very small amount vehicle completely lifted off the rail, nose designs. Additionally, Bombardier of energy absorption is required. Bombardier raised concern about the stated that CEM designs would have However, Bombardier did agree that the potential likelihood and consequence of well-defined, severe-deformation approach in the European standard a derailment occurring in a dynamic test requirements that typically require should be taken into consideration at of a production-design vehicle at a significantly more energy absorption the time when CEM standards are higher speed, especially one with a than that defined in the NPRM for developed for North American shaped-nose. Bombardier believed that collision and corner posts, and as such, application. there would be particular safety concern requiring the proposed dynamic (severe- FRA believes that it was appropriate in conducting the proposed dynamic deformation) test option would be in the NPRM to reference the European test because the 10,000-pound proxy redundant. Consequently, Bombardier standard and its adoption of dynamic object would be positioned between the recommended that the proposed test standards. FRA did not intend to rails directly in front of the test vehicle requirements for the dynamic test indicate that the European standard was and fall directly in front of the vehicle. option be deleted and that the proposed comparable to the dynamic performance Bombardier therefore stated that it quasi-static test requirements for the requirements proposed in the NPRM, would be premature to include the collision and corner posts be retained and FRA did highlight several proposed dynamic tests in a Federal for only flat-nosed designs. differences between them. As noted regulation, until FRA conducts and FRA notes that the goal of dynamic above, FRA has made a more technical validates the safety of these tests on a testing is preservation of a survivable comparison of the European collision post and a corner post for both space for the train crew and passengers. deformable-lorry requirements and the a flat-nosed and a shaped-nose, Flat-nosed designs must be able to dynamic performance requirements in production-model end frame. absorb energy and deform gracefully this final rule. This effort involved

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1201

taking FRA’s prototype end frame Additionally, CRM raised concern withstand the same level of force. The design and using finite element analysis about the repeatability of energy- BLET added that it is noteworthy that to compare its performance with the absorbing testing, stating that it has the non-operating side of the equipment European specification and the final found that physical properties, such as is typically located on the ‘‘railroad’’ rule’s requirements. Significant yield, can be 30-percent higher than the side of the train and that, as a result, differences were found between the published minimum. CRM asked if FRA impacts on that side are more likely to rule’s dynamic performance has experience in the repeatability of involve railroad equipment, producing requirements and those described in the identical energy-absorption tests with higher collision forces. Similarly, in a European standard, including: the safety substantially-varying material frontal raking collision between two of conducting such testing, the properties, noting that repeatability trains made of up this equipment, the repeatability of the results obtained, the studies it had seen were for multiple BLET believed that the two ‘‘weaker’’ ease of analysis, and the focus on the test samples made with both the same corners would meet, with potentially performance of the superstructure of the heat and physical properties. catastrophic consequences for cab car or MU locomotive. The FRA FRA recognizes that material passengers and crewmembers alike. The dynamic performance requirements variability is a concern. Manufacturers BLET also stated that the Volpe Center entail lower amounts of collision energy may need to request that specific had researched and tested stepwell designed to provide repeatable results material testing be conducted when configurations and determined that it under conditions that are readily ordering materials for constructing cab was viable to design a stepwell that was analyzable with a clear means of cars and MU locomotives in compliance capable of supporting the end/buffer assessing adequate performance. The with this rule. Nevertheless, differences beam so that the non-operating side of same was not found to be true of the in yield strength are not as important as the cab could comply with proposed European standard. differences in the elongation to failure § 238.213(b). In its comments on the NPRM, CRM of the material, because most of the FRA notes that, after a review and raised concern with actual dynamic performance of interest is associated analysis of technical information, both testing of collision and corner posts with plastic deformations. FRA has FRA and APTA’s PRESS C&S using curved-shaped equipment, conducted dynamic and quasi-static Subcommittee determined that the believing that the curved shape can be tests of nominally the same design with proposed alternative arrangement would addressed in a quasi-static test but that varied results in energy absorption. This provide a level of safety equivalent to the results would likely differ with experience has demonstrated the that on locomotive engineer’s side of the those from a dynamic test. importance of validating analysis cab end. Moreover, the analysis did not through testing. Small design details can show that an impact on the non- FRA notes that, although the manner have dramatic effects and should be operating side of the cab end would be of load application can vary, dynamic considered carefully in highly loaded more likely to spread damage across the testing provides immediate feedback as areas. full width of the cab end as described to how the tested structure will perform by the commenter. Nevertheless, in light in an actual collision. Quasi-static 3. Alternative Corner Post Requirements of the comments raised, FRA conducted testing of a shaped structure has to for Designs With Stepwells a further review and analysis of the simplify for how the load enters the The BLET raised concern with the available technical information. That structure and reacts; consequently, the proposed corner post requirements for review and analysis reaffirmed FRA’s test results may not be truly reflective of cab cars and MU locomotives utilizing determination that the engineer and actual performance. For this reason, low-level passenger boarding on the other occupants would not be placed at FRA believes that the alternative, non-operating side of the cab end. The greater risk as a result of the corner post dynamic performance requirements in BLET believed that the proposed arrangement on the non-operating side this final rule are better applicable to requirements for corner post resistance of the cab end. FRA has therefore non-traditionally-shaped cab cars and were significantly lower than those for decided to retain this provision in the MU locomotives. the operating side. The BLET stated that final rule. However, the final rule CRM also commented that the it has consistently voiced the position contains an additional requirement that dynamic testing proposed for the corner that current crashworthiness protection FRA review and approve plans for post of an aerodynamically-shaped car for this equipment is so low that the manufacturing cab cars and MU would impart larger lateral and vertical only practical recourse a locomotive locomotives with this corner post design loads on the corner post than on the engineer has after realizing a collision is arrangement. Each plan must detail how collision post. impending is to place the train’s brakes the corner post requirements will be As FRA has noted, the dynamic in emergency and flee the operating cab, met, including what the acceptance performance requirements included in running through the car toward the rear. criteria will be to evaluate compliance. this final rule facilitate testing of end While the BLET did believe that the FRA believes that this close oversight frame designs without readily standards proposed in § 238.213(b) will help to alleviate concerns that the identifiable collision or corner post would mark a significant improvement manufactured designs are in any way structures. In this light, instead of for the engineer’s immediate worksite, it less safe for crewmembers and focusing on whether an individual believed that lesser, non-operating side passengers to occupy. corner post or collision post structure is requirements in § 238.213(c) would still Another commenter on the NPRM, capable of resisting an applied load, the create a Hobson’s choice for a Caltrans, expressed its support of the focus is more appropriately placed on locomotive engineer in the seconds proposed requirement that car designs the ability of the end frame structure as immediately preceding a collision. featuring low-level passenger boarding an integrated whole to withstand the Claiming that there would be a much in an end vestibule opposite from the impact. In fact, the end frame may be greater potential for the non-operating engineer’s seating location have two intentionally shaped to deflect a striking side of the car to deform in such a way corner posts on that non—operating side object, which would be an acceptable as to provide insufficient survivability, of the car. However, Caltrans stated that means of complying with the dynamic the BLET stated that both sides of the the rule must make clear that this performance requirements. equipment should be required to requirement applies only to those cars

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

with a passenger loading stepwell in the cost for small orders. Bombardier conducting either quasi-static or same vestibule as the engineer’s control contended that if these severe- dynamic testing should be comparable. location. Caltrans believed that this deformation requirements were truly But even more important, FRA believes provision should not encompass its car considered to be safety requirements, that dynamic testing provides at least design where the engineer is located on then it is imperative that they be the same level of confidence in the the second level of the car and the side required for all new equipment, safety of the equipment tested as door is on the opposite side on the regardless of the size of the order. through quasi-static testing, and a lower level. Bombardier noted that since the manufacturer or railroad could FRA agrees with the comment raised proposed quasi-static requirements were voluntarily choose to conduct dynamic by Caltrans and makes clear that the also contained in an APTA standard testing. The voluntary act of a provision does not apply to a design (APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. 2), the manufacturer or railroad would provide where the stepwell and engineer’s cab quasi-static requirements would not sufficient evidence that dynamic testing are not in the very same vestibule. impose a greater cost burden on the does not materially add to costs, and no APTA’s comments on the NPRM industry than what it already accepts. specific benefit-cost analysis is needed expressed support for the proposal to However, Bombardier maintained that to provide a voluntary alternative. As allow vehicle designs with two corner the actual cost to conduct dynamic FRA has noted, FRA does agree that posts on the non-engineer’s side of the testing, which would be expected to be actual physical testing should be cab end. According to APTA, this done at a location offsite of the required and that large orders, as well proposal would allow vehicles to manufacturer’s facility, would most as small orders alike, should undergo continue to have stepwells for low- likely be much greater than for quasi- actual testing. Yet, as discussed platform boarding, which APTA noted static testing. Consequently, before any elsewhere in this preamble, FRA does is an operational necessity for many dynamic performance requirements are not believe that actual physical testing passenger railroads. APTA did raise included in the regulation, Bombardier of a complete, production-design concern that neither the preamble nor believed that a proper cost-benefit vehicle is required, and FRA recognizes the proposed rule text specifically analysis would be needed and that it in particular the potential cost of doing acknowledged that the corner post was not evident from the information in so for small car orders. ahead of the stepwell be allowed to fail the public docket that a valid cost- CRM also raised concerns as to the when applying the loads to the corner benefit analysis had been conducted. cost of demonstrating compliance with post behind the stepwell. APTA Bombardier noted that the section-by- the regulation to manufacturers of small believed that allowing a structural section analysis seemed to imply that orders of cab cars or MU locomotives. member to fail as part of a test or verification of compliance with either CRM believed that consideration needs analysis is an unusual concept for a the quasi-static or dynamic performance to be given to these manufacturers to Federal regulation and that it warrants requirements would require an actual protect them from undue financial and clear discussion in the preamble. test, while the preamble did state that schedule hardships. FRA agrees that testing a post all the FRA has taken into account the costs modern methods of analysis can way through to complete failure has of this final rule to manufacturers of accurately predict structural crush safety implications and should not be small orders of cab cars or MU (severe deformation) and consequently done without thorough analysis first. As locomotives. As noted, FRA believes can be used with confidence to develop noted, FRA has modified this provision that for both large and small orders, the structures that collapse in a controlled to require FRA review and approval of manufacturer must perform actual manner. Bombardier added that the a plan, including acceptance criteria, to physical testing. However, FRA does not proposed rule text was itself silent as to evaluate compliance with these corner believe that actual physical testing of a whether an actual test would be post requirements. FRA believes that complete, production-design vehicle is required or whether analysis could be this oversight will help to address the required. FRA recognizes in particular used to verify compliance with the concern raised by the commenter. the potential cost of doing so for small severe-deformation requirements. order sizes. Compliance may be 4. Use of Testing and Analysis To Bombardier therefore believed that FRA demonstrated by a combination of Demonstrate Compliance should clarify what would be required engineering analysis and physical FRA requested specific comment on to demonstrate compliance with the testing on a smaller scale. whether and under what circumstances severe-deformation requirements and CRM further commented that analysis and scale model or fixture should include the associated costs in destructive testing could be very testing might be acceptable to the cost-benefit analysis. expensive. CRM stated that its demonstrate compliance with the FRA notes that it did ask the customers generally order in small alternative, dynamic performance commenter and other members of the quantities, often in the range of two to requirements. A number of comments Task Force to provide FRA with three cars. According to CRM, were received in response to this estimated costs for each testing producing a 19.25-foot long section of request, and in addressing them FRA alternative for FRA to review. FRA did the end of a car for destructive testing discusses their application to both the not receive this specific cost would represent a considerable, quasi-static and the dynamic information. FRA agrees with additional expenditure. CRM therefore performance requirements, as Bombardier that the cost of meeting the requested that FRA clarify that the test appropriate. quasi-static test requirements is likely sample need not be a large end section Bombardier commented that the not to add to the costs of manufacturing of the car, noting that as the NPRM is severe-deformation requirements or purchasing new passenger focused on the post structure and its proposed in the NPRM (for either the equipment. However, FRA does not attachments, the test sample should be quasi-static or the dynamic performance agree that the costs of dynamic testing limited to just that. CRM nonetheless requirements) would result in a would be greater than the costs of quasi- estimated the costs of quasi-static significant, added cost for cab cars and static testing. Based upon the testing testing to be approximately $250,000 for MU locomotives, particularly as a program sponsored by FRA at the TTC each design after a capital expenditure percentage of the overall procurement in Pueblo, CO, the overall cost of of $75,000 for test fixtures.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1203

FRA agrees that the entire car need characterization or sub-assembly testing requirement that the test methodology not be tested. Bombardier has to confirm that the modes of be submitted for FRA review prior to the conducted quasi-static end frame tests deformation and failure are modeled conduct of destructive testing. where the end of the car was tested only appropriately. FRA recognizes that after APTA commented that it believed to the body bolster; this would be several designs have been tested and such pre-approval to be unwise. APTA appropriate. (See ‘‘Review of Severe approved, perhaps future designs that stated that delay awaiting FRA approval Deformation Recommended Practice are very similar to the older designs would impact schedules, extend the Through Analyses—Comparison of Two could be accepted through analysis already extensive procurement process, Cab Car End Frame Designs,’’ cited only. The individual car builder would and expose car builders to liquidated above.) There are a variety of ways of still have to demonstrate good damages should FRA review be delayed. testing the end frame structure that experience conducting large Instead, if FRA were to impose a would not require production of a test deformation analyses, including requirement to submit a test plan, APTA specimen of the 19.25-foot size material failure. recommended that FRA include a described. Current testing of end frames APTA stated that FRA asked for presumption that the plan is approved (both dynamically as well as a quasi- specific comment on whether and under by some reasonable time after submittal statically) is intended to ensure that the what circumstances analysis and scale to FRA, to avoid increasing the superstructure with some supporting model or fixture testing might be commercial risk to car builders. structure can deform gracefully while acceptable to demonstrate compliance Caltrans’ comments raised similar not allowing permanent deformations in with the dynamic performance concern with the inclusion of a the car body structure too much of a requirements. APTA stated that this was requirement that test plans be submitted distance behind the connection points. a key question, noting that the rule text to FRA for approval, asserting a great As a result, considerably smaller test proposed that compliance ‘‘be possibility of project delay while the articles may be used, provided of course demonstrated.’’ APTA believed that railroad or its contract equipment that both the collision post and corner either a test or analysis could apparently supplier is awaiting FRA’s response. In post structures are subject to actual fulfill the requirement and that there addition, CRM commented that, while testing. In addition, FRA believes that was no indication or guidance of when its involvement with Volpe Center staff the costs estimated by CRM for testing analysis would suffice in lieu of testing. in the analysis and testing of its are too high, absent more specific cost APTA recommended that, until the equipment has been very informative information from the commenter, and industry, in partnership with FRA, can and helpful, it did not recommend that any expenditure for test fixtures reasonably describe under what mandating the submittal of test plans. should be a one-time cost that could be circumstances a test must be done and CRM believed that doing so would spread over many orders. when analysis alone is sufficient, the require FRA to budget for a staff to In addition, CRM proposed that option for dynamic testing should not support this effort in a timely manner so analysis be allowed in lieu of actual be included. that delivery schedules remain testing for orders of less than 50 cars, FRA notes that due to uncertainty unaffected. Nonetheless, CRM provided that the analysis methods have associated with progression of material recommended that FRA publish been validated by actual testing. In its failure, some level of actual physical guidelines for preparing analyses and comments on the NPRM, Caltrain also testing is necessary. But this uncertainty conducting tests so that manufacturers requested clarification whether actual is not limited to demonstrating know to follow an approach with which testing is required to demonstrate compliance with the dynamic FRA agrees. compliance, or whether analysis would performance requirements; it would also In response to these comments, FRA be acceptable. Caltrain believed that it apply for demonstrating compliance makes clear that it welcomes the had been decided that for purposes of with the quasi-static requirements. In submittal of test plans for its review. For complying with the APTA collision and this preamble to the final rule, FRA is instance, if a manufacturer were to corner posts standards on which this providing additional guidance in conduct a test without using appropriate rulemaking is based, current computer response to similar comments received instrumentation or without applying a finite element modeling methods were on the need for and extent of actual load at the appropriate location, a new adequate to verify design performance, physical testing. In general, FRA test would likely be costly and would in part due to the cost associated with believes that a combination of actual likely have been avoided had a test plan destructive testing. physical testing and analysis is been submitted to FRA for review. FRA believes that there is no appropriate to demonstrate compliance Nevertheless, FRA agrees with the substitute for conducting actual testing, with the requirements in this final rule, commenters and, in general, is not as we have seen from the quasi-static and FRA encourages manufacturers to imposing new submittal requirements. test of the collision post that did not approach FRA should they have any As noted, however, FRA is requiring the meet the energy-absorbing requirement questions or concerns about submission and approval of plans to due to the location of a rigid gusset, demonstrating the compliance of cab ensure compliance with the alternative even though the modeling showed that cars or MU locomotives they corner post requirements for the non- it would.12 In particular, because there manufacture with this final rule’s engineer’s side of the cab end of are always some uncertainties requirements. vehicles with stepwells for low-level associated with new designs and platform boarding. See § 238.213(c) and 5. Submission of Test Plans for FRA appendix F. FRA does encourage materials, some degree of testing is Review required whether for material submission of other plans for the safety In part because FRA recognized that of new designs that are significantly 12 Muhlanger, M., Llana, P., Tyrell, D., ‘‘Dynamic questions may arise in applying the different than conventional equipment, and Quasi-Static Grade Crossing Collision Tests,’’ proposed dynamic performance and FRA believes that manufacturers American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper requirements in situations not clearly would benefit by approaching FRA No. JRC2009–63035, March 2009. This document is available on the Volpe Center’s Web site at: anticipated today, FRA requested before such designs are complete to http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2009/09- comment on whether this final rule prevent the need for redesign or retrofit. 63035.pdf. should include either an option or a In this regard, FRA notes that § 238.111

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(Pre-revenue service acceptance testing should be a major concern from both an generally intermingled with freight plan) contains specific requirements for economic and an environmental point equipment of lesser weight, and in the preparation and submittal of pre- of view, causing greater wear on the many cases highway-rail grade-crossings revenue service acceptance testing plans track, increased energy consumption, also pose lesser hazards to passenger for passenger equipment that has not and decreased operational performance. trains in Europe and Asia due to lower been used in revenue service in the The commenter believed that reducing highway vehicle weight. FRA is United States. Pursuant to car weight and enabling use of European necessarily concerned with the level of § 238.111(b)(2), such plans must be designs can reduce costs, and that there safety provided by passenger equipment submitted to FRA at least 30 days prior is a definite environmental and designed to European and other to conducting the testing, but FRA economic impact from having collision international standards when such approval is required for Tier II standards that differ from those in equipment is intended to be operated in passenger equipment only. Of course, it Europe or Asia. the United States and must ensure that is within the purview of FRA to review As noted earlier, FRA wishes to dispel the designs are appropriate for the the crashworthiness of all equipment the belief that there is a meaningful nation’s operating environment. FRA prior to its placement in service, and to correlation between an increase in a does believe that these new assess the compliance of all equipment vehicle’s crashworthiness and its requirements for collision posts and with the requirements of the Federal weight. As FRA has stated, corner posts will significantly enhance railroad safety laws and regulations. crashworthiness features from clean- the performance of the posts in sheet designs can occupy the same protecting occupants of cab cars and 6. Whether the Requirements Affect space as other material and not weigh in MU locomotives, while having little if Vehicle Weight excess of the structure(s) being replaced. any effect on total vehicle weight. AWA commented that, while it stands There is considerable leeway in firmly for rail safety, it was concerned designing such systems so that no 7. System Safety with any policies or institutions that additional weight is required, and the Caltrain’s comments on the NPRM have the effect of limiting the car body structure itself typically raised issues not only on the NPRM development and operation of passenger accounts for only between 25 to 35 itself but also on FRA’s overall approach trains and pushing existing or potential percent of the final car weight. In fact, to regulation. Caltrain asserted that if rail passengers onto already crowded FRA found that the FRA/Volpe SOA the entire system, made up of highways and putting more people at end frame design added less than 500 components that may not be compliant greater risk. As stated in its comments, pounds to vehicle weight. This with specific FRA regulations, can be AWA believed the NPRM to be the latest difference is less than a one-percent shown to be as safe or safer than a in a series of FRA rules that attempt to increase in the weight of the vehicle system made up of components that enforce safety by adding yet more heavy over a typical 1990s design, but individually meet FRA’s regulations, metal to already massive passenger represents a considerable increase in then the true mission of both FRA and trains. AWA raised concern with improved crashworthiness performance. the railroad has been met. Caltrain increasing the weight of America’s A vehicle with such a design was found recommended that FRA reword the ‘‘uniquely bulky’’ passenger rail fleet capable of safely withstanding the same NPRM so as not to discourage railroads compared with the ‘‘extremely safe, collision scenario at nearly a 50-percent from taking a systems-based approach to lighter’’ trains of Switzerland, Germany, greater collision speed—or more than safety. In this regard, Caltrain Sweden, or Japan, and how the added double the amount of collision energy— recommended that FRA direct some of monetary costs of such heavier trains in as opposed to one without. its research funds toward examining the terms of purchase and greater energy Further, the requirements in this final safe use of CEM designs that do not consumption may discourage or inhibit rule are performance-driven, similar to have an inner structure compliant with passenger rail carriers from acquiring the new European standards calling for part 238, to improve energy efficiency as rail cars or running passenger trains. scenario-defined loading of the well as international trade possibilities. AWA recommended FRA reconsider its superstructure with energy and FRA notes that there are already action and consider the impacts of displacement evaluation criteria, as procedures in place to allow the mandating even heavier and costlier discussed above. In fact, the two are in operation of equipment built to ‘‘steel-wheeled Hummers.’’ AWA much closer harmony when compared alternative standards. FRA permits such recommended that FRA look to with FRA’s more traditional flexibility and has reviewed and harmonize passenger rail car requirements for cab cars and MU approved the proposed operation of construction and safety standards with locomotives. The two sets of alternatively-designed equipment for the widely-accepted standards of the requirements differ principally in how CMTA. Moreover, FRA has established International Union of Railways (UIC), a compliance is demonstrated. FRA the Engineering Task Force of the worldwide organization for the believes that the methods called for in Passenger Safety Working group to promotion of rail transport and this final rule are significantly less produce a set of technical evaluation cooperation, so that rail agencies and complicated than the methods provided criteria and procedures for passenger operators can afford to provide more in the European standards, while rail equipment built to alternative people with passenger rail service. addressing similar concerns. designs. The technical evaluation Similarly, a private citizen principally Nonetheless, as FRA has previously criteria and procedures are intended to commented that rather than increasing stated, the rail operating environment in provide an engineering-based method of crashworthiness requirements and the the United States generally requires comparing the crashworthiness of weight of cab cars, FRA should first passenger equipment to operate alternatively-designed equipment to the investigate whether existing UIC commingled with very heavy and long crashworthiness of equipment designed standards for end strength and buff freight trains, often over track with to the structural standards set forth in strength would provide equal or better frequent highway-rail grade-crossings part 238. The initial focus of this effort safety than the current FRA standards. used by heavy highway equipment. will be on Tier I standards. When The commenter believed that increasing European and Asian passenger completed, the criteria and procedures the weight of passenger equipment operations, on the other hand, are would not only form a technical basis

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1205

for making determinations concerning As Caltrain noted, FRA does train, which had stopped for a station. equivalent safety pursuant to § 238.201 encourage railroads to engage in system The lead car of the oncoming train but also provide a technical framework safety planning, and FRA even proposed telescoped and overrode the rear car of for presenting evidence to FRA in to make system safety planning a the stopped train by about 50 feet, support of any request for waiver of the requirement for passenger railroads. See resulting in 9 fatalities and numerous compressive (buff) strength requirement 62 FR 49728, 49800. Elements of system injuries. See letter dated September 22, set forth in § 238.203. See, generally, 49 safety planning are a part of the 2009, from Deborah A.P. Hersman, CFR part 211 (Rules of Practice). The Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Chairman, NTSB, to Joseph C. Szabo, criteria and procedures could be see discussion at 64 FR 25548–25550, Administrator, FRA, conveying Safety incorporated into part 238 at a later date and FRA is newly examining system Recommendations R–09–20 and –21 after notice and opportunity for public safety requirements for passenger (Urgent), and R–09–22. This letter is comment. railroads in the Passenger Safety available on the NTSB’s Web site at: However, FRA strongly believes that, Working Group’s Passenger Safety Task http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2009/ based upon research already conducted Force. Moreover, FRA has long followed R09_20_21_22.pdf. Four and a half years on application of CEM to conventional a policy of focusing on both collision- earlier, on November 3, 2004, a non- passenger rail equipment, the prescribed mitigation and collision-avoidance revenue WMATA train rolled occupied-volume strength is required to measures, as both are necessary for safe backwards down a grade and struck a serve as the foundation against which railroading. Collision-mitigation train that was in the process of crush elements can react and thereby measures alone do not eliminate the risk discharging and loading passengers at a achieve high levels of energy absorption of injuries to passenger and station. The car at the rear end of the in reasonable crush distances while not crewmembers should a collision occur, striking train overrode the leading end creating too severe an interior but neither do collision-avoidance of the first car of the stopped train and deceleration environment. measures eliminate the risk of a sustained a loss of about 34 linear feet Caltrain raised additional concern collision in any currently-practical way of the passenger occupant volume, with FRA’s approach in the NPRM to given, e.g., the potential (however which was almost half the length of the mitigate risk by increasing the remote) for a rail to suddenly break passenger compartment. Had the survivability of an incident rather than under a train and cause a derailment. passenger compartment not been empty, by implementing a broader, systems FRA therefore applies complementary the loss of that length of occupant approach that would first take into approaches to reducing overall risk, volume could have caused numerous account the railroad’s efforts to avoid including tightening track safety fatalities. See ‘‘Collision Between Two the incident altogether or lower its standards and implementing PTC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit probability of occurrence. Caltrain cited systems. (On July 21, 2009, FRA Authority Trains at the Woodley Park- and agreed with FRA’s promotion of published an NPRM implementing a Zoo/Adams Morgan Station in system safety planning in the railroad requirement of the Rail Safety Washington, DC, November 3, 2004,’’ industry, but believed that FRA has Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of NTSB Report No. RAR–06–01, adopted applied system safety planning in too 2008), Div. A of Public Law 110–432; on March 23, 2006. This report is limited a way. Caltrain believed that the 122 Stat. 4848 et seq. (Oct. 16, 2008), available on the NTSB’s Web site at: NPRM focuses on increasing the that certain passenger and freight http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/ survivability of a low-probability event, railroads install PTC systems, see 74 FR RAR0601.pdf. and thus mandates the solution rather 35950.) It is nonetheless paramount to than encourage the railroad to avoid the 8. Other Comments establish, in addition to collision- incident altogether. Caltrain stated that Bombardier commented that the focusing on safety at the component avoidance methods, a base minimum structural loads (including those for level provides a lower return on level of crashworthiness performance. severe deformation) defined in APTA investment than by broadening that Here, as a regulatory agency issuing a SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. 2, specify focus to the system level. Caltrain cited rule of general applicability for requirements for collision and corner the Washington Metropolitan Area passenger equipment that may be posts that act together with the Transit Authority’s (WMATA) approach operated commingled with freight trains supporting car body structure and to addressing the safety of its operations and over public highway-rail grade- intervening connections. To make this on tracks that parallel freight operations. crossings used by heavy highway regulation consistent with the industry Caltrain stated that after WMATA first vehicles, FRA believes that certain standard, therefore, Bombardier mitigated the risk of derailing its own minimum enhancements to collision recommended that this final rule adopt trains into the freight railroad’s right-of- mitigation measures are necessary. the same approach. way by maintaining its vehicles and These enhancements have been FRA agrees with the commenter and tracks to tight standards, WMATA developed with the industry and can be has modified this final rule accordingly. ultimately decided to install an readily met as a result of improvements The intent has always been to have the intrusion detection system to provide and maturity in design techniques entire end frame act as a system and warning of freight train derailments available to manufacturers. FRA notes resist intrusion of objects that threaten fouling WMATA’s tracks. Caltrain that WMATA operates in a different the superstructure of the cab car or MU believed that if WMATA had taken the environment as a rapid transit system locomotive. approach presented in the NPRM, not connected to the general railroad CRM sought to extend the effective however, rather than a system safety system, and WMATA is not subject to date of the final rule so as not to impact approach, WMATA would have bought FRA’s jurisdiction. But even WMATA existing orders. In addition, CPUC larger and heavier vehicles, incurred cannot eliminate the risk of a collision supported FRA’s proposed applicability additional and continuing costs as a altogether, and collisions of WMATA dates for the collision and corner post result, and would nonetheless not have trains have resulted in significant loss of requirements as enhancements to safety avoided the risk of injury to passengers life and damage. On June 22, 2009, a while still allowing manufacturers and and crewmembers should a collision WMATA train traveling in a curve industry buyers adequate time to occur. struck the rear end of another WMATA develop and provide the required

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

additional cab car and MU locomotive loads to the end frame, making issues were addressed by RSAC, citing strengthening. protection of the occupied volume FRA’s statement in the NPRM that FRA FRA did not intend to impact existing paramount. had received no indication of concerns orders. While this final rule may have In addition, Caltrain commented that about the federalism implications of the an effective date of March 9, 2010 the making the car body stronger seems rulemaking. The CPUC also raised the new collision and corner posts secondary to preventive measures, and same issue, referring to the UTU’s requirements apply to cab cars and MU even contrary to FRA’s stated objective comment that the UTU was not locomotives ordered on or after May 10, of reducing secondary-impact velocities. involved in any discussions regarding 2010, or placed in service for the first Caltrain stated that in a train-to-train the preemption of State common law. time March 8, 2012. This date range is collision, rigid non-CEM vehicles will The CPUC itself commented that the consistent with other applicability dates experience higher secondary-impact ASRSM’s RSAC representative advised imposed by FRA, and FRA believes they velocities than vehicles equipped with the CPUC that it too could not recall a are achievable. CEM and that by focusing on the discussion regarding the preemption of In other comments on the NPRM, the specific approach in the NPRM, FRA State law. BLET expressed disappointment that may be overlooking more cost-effective FRA makes clear that it did not intend the proposed rule did not include solutions. to convey that RSAC had reached general cab standards. The BLET stated FRA notes that it is not necessarily consensus on FRA’s statements in the that, while the proposed rule would true that use of CEM will result in lower NPRM as to preemption. Indeed, FRA make significant and meaningful strides secondary-impact forces in a train-to- did not make preemption an issue in improving crashworthiness, no train collision. Secondary-impact forces within RSAC on which it sought consideration has been given to any may actually be higher as part of a CEM- consensus. Nonetheless, FRA believes other ergonomic issue, including cab design that mitigates initial impact that commenters have read too much size, vibration, noise, and seat forces by dissipating the forces more into what FRA did say in the NPRM. In construction. The BLET believed that evenly throughout the train. Test data discussing the federalism implications equipment is evolving to the point has shown cars in a CEM-train to have of the rulemaking in Section V.A. of the where locomotive engineers are higher secondary-impact velocities. NPRM’s preamble, FRA stated the confined to essentially small cages, B. Preemption following: creating both safety and security risks that are foreseeable and avoidable. A number of comments were filed on [F]ederalism concerns have been FRA understands that this rule does the topic of Federal preemption considered in the development of this NPRM concerning the safety of operating a cab both internally and through consultation not address general cab standards. within the RSAC forum, as described in Instead, this rule is focused on car or an MU locomotive as the leading Section II of this preamble, above. The full improving the crashworthiness of the unit of a passenger train, as well as RSAC, which reached consensus on the front end structure of cab cars and MU concerning passenger equipment safety proposal (with the exception discussed above locomotives in the event of an impact in general. Several of these comments concerning cab cars and MU locomotives generating collision forces that overload were from members of Congress. These without flat-ends or with CEM designs, or the superstructure of the car. General and other comments on the topic of both) and then recommended it to FRA, has cab standards include consideration of Federal preemption are generally as permanent voting members two structural layout, ergonomics, and grouped by issue and are addressed organizations representing State and local human factors, and would need to be below. interests: AASHTO and ASRSM. As such, these State organizations concurred with the addressed in a separate RSAC effort. proposed requirements (again, with the Caltrain commented on FRA’s 1. Whether FRA Characterized Its Views on Preemption as the RSAC Consensus exception noted above). The RSAC regularly statement in the NPRM that FRA’s provides recommendations to the FRA crashworthiness research program Several commenters raised the Administrator for solutions to regulatory focuses on two objectives: preservation concern that FRA’s statements in the issues that reflect significant input from its of a safe space in which occupants can NPRM wrongly conveyed the idea that State members. To date, FRA has received no ride out a collision or derailment, and a consensus had been expressed within indication of concerns about the Federalism minimization of physical forces to RSAC on the preemptive effect of the implications of this rulemaking from these which occupants are subjected when rulemaking. Specifically, the BLET, representatives or from any other impacting surfaces inside a passenger which is an RSAC member and was a representative on the Committee. train as the train decelerates. Caltrain participant in RSAC meetings on the 72 FR 42036. FRA did state that RSAC, did not believe that the NPRM rulemaking, asserted that RSAC never with one exception, had reached adequately addressed the second addressed, much less reached consensus consensus on the proposed objective. Caltrain stated that the on, the preemptive effect of the requirements. These requirements were amount of energy absorbed by the proposed rule. The BLET contended the amendments to §§ 238.205 (Anti- collision and corner posts will not that FRA erroneously claimed that climbing mechanism), 238.211 significantly lower secondary-impact RSAC agreed by consensus to the (Collision posts), and 238.213 (Corner velocities. preemption provision espoused in the posts). For this reason, FRA explicitly FRA notes that for events that NPRM, stating that RSAC meeting mentioned that consensus had not been primarily load the superstructure (i.e., documents reflect discussion of reached on dynamic test standards for end frame) of the cab car or MU technical issues only. The UTU, which cab cars and MU locomotives. FRA locomotive, secondary-impact response also is an RSAC member and was a should have made clearer that it did not for passengers is not a real concern. For participant in RSAC meetings on the intend to convey that RSAC’s consensus example, since highway vehicles weigh rulemaking as well, similarly included the proposed modification to much less than trains, a collision with commented that it was never involved § 238.13 (Preemptive effect), or any of a highway vehicle at a grade crossing in any discussions regarding the FRA’s views on preemption. FRA did would not impart dangerously high preemption of State common law. The not consider § 238.13 a proposed decelerations to the train or the train UTU disagreed with FRA’s requirement, and FRA did not make it occupants but could impart significant characterization of how federalism an issue for which consensus was

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1207

sought. To the extent that FRA had did not intend that the Federal Railroad FRSA not preclude victims of railroad discussed preemption in RSAC, FRA Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) (formerly 45 accidents from seeking redress under had explained to RSAC members what U.S.C. 421 et seq., now repealed and State law for their injuries and losses, it has told the public and continues to reenacted as positive law primarily in and could inform the interpretation of say regarding the permissibility of a chapter 201 of title 49) would be FRSA by the courts or other interested railroad not to operate Tier I passenger interpreted to prevent injured victims parties. The Congressmen requested that trains in a push-pull configuration—in from asserting their rights under FRA revise the preamble to make particular, the freedom of a State or common law, and raised concern that explicit reference to the amendments to local authority funding its own railroad FRA’s views on preemption may serve Section 20106 and make clear that to direct that its railroad not operate to immunize negligent railroad FRSA does not prevent victims of trains in push-pull fashion. (See below companies and prevent train derailment railroad accidents from holding railroad for a fuller discussion of this issue.) victims from holding these companies companies to account for their actions FRA also believes that some accountable for their injuries. The in a court of law. confusion may have arisen from FRA’s Congressmen stated that the 9/11 In addition to members of Congress, use of customary language discussing Commission Act of 2007 clarified that the AAJ commented that in the 9/11 the federalism implications of its Section 20106 is intended as a limited Commission Act of 2007 Congress rulemaking actions in general and the preemption provision to prevent States reiterated its intent to preserve State tort consultation afforded through RSAC. from implementing their own rail safety claims against negligent railroads. The Because FRA’s rulemaking actions have regulations in certain instances and was AAJ asserted that section 1528 of this preemptive effect by virtue of 49 U.S.C. not designed to preempt cases brought law sends a loud and clear message that 20106 (Section 20106), discussed by victims of railroad derailments. The Section 20106 in no way preempts State further below, RSAC serves as a forum Congressmen believed that the law common law claims and that to the in which FRA can consult with State sends a loud and clear message that extent the U.S. Supreme Court has and local officials early in the process FRSA in no way preempts State construed a Congressional intent in of developing proposed regulations in common law claims and to the extent Section 20106 to preempt State law, accordance with the executive order on the U.S. Supreme Court has construed a Congress has cleared up any confusion. federalism. FRA recognizes the value in Congressional intent to federally The AAJ concluded that there is no such consultations and the ability of preempt State law claims against room for argument that the 9/11 State and local interests to raise railroads Congress has cleared up any Commission Act of 2007 does anything federalism concerns with proposed confusion. Accordingly, the but restore the rights of victims to sue regulatory actions. Here, no federalism Congressmen believed that statements negligent railroads under State law. concerns had been raised in RSAC in the preamble to the NPRM containing Finally, the BLET commented that it regarding the proposed requirements in language attempting to preempt State could not be clearer that Congress the rulemaking—what would become common law standards contradicts intended to preserve State common law national standards through a final rule— Congressional intent and subverts the causes of action in the circumstances and FRA represented that fact using a legislative determination that Congress defined in the 9/11 Commission Act of customary formulation. FRA did not does not want to leave victims of 2007. The BLET stated that the intend that representation to mean that negligent railroads without any conference report on the legislation RSAC members had no objections to any recourse. of FRA’s statements on federalism in the makes clear that Congress did not NPRM. FRA makes clear that no such Three other members of Congress also intend to preempt all State causes of meaning or implication was intended. jointly commented on FRA’s statements action in every area where FRA has in the NPRM concerning preemption issued—or has considered but declined 2. Whether FRA’s Views Are Consistent and requested that FRA revise its to issue—safety regulations. The BLET With 49 U.S.C. 20106, as Amended discussion in light of the revisions made also commented that when FRA A number of commenters, including to Section 20106 by the 9/11 published the NPRM, the bill was on the members of Congress, raised concern Commission Act of 2007. Senators Kent President’s desk. that FRA’s statements in the NPRM Conrad and Byron Dorgan and FRA believes it important to address were not consistent with revisions made Congressman Earl Pomeroy noted that the comments raised as to why the to 49 U.S.C. 20106 by the Implementing section 1528 of the 9/11 Commission NPRM does not reflect the changes Recommendations of the 9/11 Act of 2007 clarified the intent of made to Section 20106 by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Congress with respect to the preemptive Commission Act of 2007. FRA believes Commission Act of 2007), Public Law effect of FRSA but that, perhaps as a that the timing of the NPRM’s issuance 110–53, Aug. 3, 2007. Congressmen result of chronology, the preamble to the has led to misunderstandings reflected James Oberstar and Bennie Thompson NPRM made no reference to the in the comments. Although the NPRM jointly commented that they had strong Congressional action. The Congressmen was published on August 1, 2007, it was concern over the preemption language believed that certain statements in the issued by FRA on July 26, 2007. At the included in the preamble. They preamble could be interpreted to time of the NPRM’s issuance, Congress requested that FRA issued a revised contradict the language that Congress was still deliberating the legislation: the NPRM to delete portions of the had just enacted and that it would be Senate agreed to it that same day, and preamble inconsistent with revisions inappropriate to issue a final rule that the House passed it the following day, made to Section 20106. In the does not accurately reflect current law. July 27, 2007. When Congress cleared alternative, the Congressmen believed The Congressmen cited as an example the bill for the White House, the NPRM that FRA should include a revised the statement ‘‘FRA believes that it has was being processed for publication at preemptive effect discussion in the preempted any State law, regulation, or the Federal Register. Consequently, the preamble of the final rule to reflect order, including State common law.’’ NPRM did not reflect any changes made Congress’ intent that such regulations The Congressmen raised concern that to Section 20106 by the 9/11 do not preempt State tort claims. The this statement could be read to Commission Act of 2007, signed by the Congressmen commented that Congress undermine the intent of Congress that President on August 3, 2007.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

As discussed elsewhere in this final squarely presented to the Court in CSX statutory and common law addressing the rule, FRA is amending the existing Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. same subject, thereby pre-empting preemption provision in this part, 658 (1993), which involved a grade- respondent’s claim. § 238.13 (Preemptive effect), to conform crossing collision. One of the Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, to the revisions made to Section 20106 respondent’s claims in the case was 529 U.S. 344, 358–359 (2000). It could by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. that, despite FRA’s Track Safety not be clearer that, before Congress FRA makes clear that any statement in Standards (49 CFR part 213) which amended Section 20106 in 2007, it the NPRM that is contrary to Section permit a maximum speed of 60 m.p.h. provided for preemption of State 20106, as amended effective August 3, over the Class Four track involved in the common law by DOT regulations. 2007, should be ignored. Nonetheless, case and train speed at the collision Congress was moved to amend FRA believes that its statements in the being below 60 m.p.h., ‘‘petitioner [CSX] Section 20106 by two court cases, NPRM are consistent with the 9/11 breached its common-law duty to Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., Commission Act of 2007’s clarification operate its train at a moderate and safe 507 F.Supp.2d 1006 (D.Minn. 2007), to Section 20106 and that there may rate of speed.’’ Id. at 673. The Court’s and Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd., have been misunderstandings as to the answer was ‘‘[w]e hold that, under the 417 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D.N.D. 2006), meaning of FRA’s statements in the FRSA, Federal regulations adopted by which left without a legal remedy tort NPRM, relating in particular to what the the Secretary of Transportation pre- plaintiffs injured in a hazardous commenters intend the terms ‘‘claim’’ empt respondent’s negligence action material release from a train wreck in and ‘‘standard’’ to mean. FRA believes only insofar as it asserts that petitioner’s Minot, ND. The judge’s opinion in that some of the comments overstate train was traveling at an excessive Lundeen said: ’’ what FRA said in the NPRM about the speed. Id. at 676. In reaching that Preemption bars private claims for FRA preemptive effect of Section 20106, even judgment, the Court reasoned that violations. Congress has given the Secretary prior to its amendment. ‘‘[a]ccording to § [20106], applicable of Transportation ‘‘exclusive authority’’ to FRA was careful to convey that Federal regulations may pre-empt any impose civil penalties and request Federal preemption under Section state ‘law, rule, regulation, order, or injunctions for violations of the railroad 20106 applied to standards of care standard relating to railroad safety.’ safety regulations. FN4 49 U.S.C. 20111(a); under State law—as opposed to claims Legal duties imposed on railroads by the Abate v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 928 F.2d 167, (causes of action) under State law. They common law fall within the scope of 170 (5th Cir. 1991) (‘‘The structure of the are different. As discussed further these broad phrases.’’ Id. at 664. The FRSA indicates that Congress intended to below, the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 give Federal agencies, not private persons, Supreme Court very plainly held that ’’ added new subsection (b) to Section the sole power of enforcement. ). the State common law standard of care FN4. The single exception to the 20106 to clarify the preemptive effect of was preempted by FRA’s Track Safety Secretary’s exclusive authority exists when FRSA so as not to restrict enumerated Standards, but that the underlying the Federal government fails to act promptly. ‘‘causes of action’’ under State law. negligence action was not. That is In such cases, state government agencies can While FRA’s regulations may preempt completely in accord with the file suit, impose penalties, or seek the standard of care, they do not amendment Congress enacted to Section injunctions. 49 U.S.C. 20113. preempt the underlying action in tort. In 20106 in section 1528 of the 9/11 Indeed, the FRSA has ‘‘absolved railroads this regard, FRA did not make the broad Commission Act of 2007. from any common law liability for failure to statement by itself that ‘‘FRA believes The Supreme Court’s interpretation of comply with the safety regulations.’’ Mehl, 417 F.Supp.2d at 1120. This is the regulatory that it has preempted any State law, Section 20106 was confirmed and regulation, or order, including State scheme which Congress has imposed. And further explained in a subsequent case when Congress has clearly spoken, any relief common law.’’ FRA made that statement involving a grade-crossing wreck in from its regime must come from Congress only in a fuller sentence that expressly which the plaintiff had alleged that the rather than the Courts. Private actions against limited its meaning: ‘‘FRA believes that railroad negligently failed to maintain railroads based on Federal regulations are it has preempted any State law, adequate warning devices at the grade- preempted. regulation, or order, including State crossing in question. The Supreme common law, concerning the operation Court held: Lundeen, supra at 1016. of a cab car or MU locomotive as the The amendment to Section 20106 Sections 646.214(b)(3) and (4) [the Federal leading unit of a passenger train.’’ See 72 made by section 1528 of the 9/11 Highway Administration regulations Commission Act of 2007 did not change FR 42036. In this instance, FRA did mandating the installation of particular intend to convey that where a claim is warning devices when certain conditions the text the Supreme Court has based on a State standard concerning exist] ‘‘cover the subject matter’’ of the interpreted. Instead, Congress enacted a the operation of a cab car or MU adequacy of warning devices installed with very precise cure for the problem locomotive, FRA has through its the participation of Federal funds. As a presented by Lundeen and Mehl by regulatory actions preempted any State result, the FRSA pre-empts respondent’s state amending Section 20106 to redesignate standard that restricts the push-pull tort claim that the advance warning signs and the then-existing language of the section reflectorized crossbucks installed at the operation of a Tier I passenger train. as subsection (a), and adding new Oakwood Church Road crossing were subsections (b) and (c). Subsection (a) However, FRA did not—and does not— inadequate. Because the TDOT [Tennessee find that any claim under State law is Department of Transportation] used Federal provides that a State may adopt or preempted merely because a train is funds for the signs’ installation, continue in force a law, regulation or operating in push-pull mode. FRA §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) governed the order related to railroad safety or believes this to be consistent with the selection and installation of the devices. And security, until the Secretary of 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. A fuller because the TDOT determined that warning Transportation (with respect to safety) discussion follows. devices other than automatic gates and or the Secretary of Homeland Security This rule preempts State common law flashing lights were appropriate, its decision (with respect to security) has acted to was subject to the approval of the FHWA. See standards of care. The Supreme Court 23 CFR 646.214(b)(4). Once the FHWA cover the subject matter. Once there are has spoken clearly on the subject of approved the project and the signs were Federal requirements covering a preempting State common law by installed using Federal funds, the Federal particular subject, a State may adopt or Section 20106. The question was standard for adequacy displaced Tennessee continue only an additional or more

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1209

stringent law, regulation, or order if it is Salazar, 129 S.Ct. 1058 (U.S., 2009). ability to pursue their cases by necessary to eliminate or reduce an Read by itself, Section 20106(a) clarifying that Federal railroad safety essentially local safety or security preempts State standards of care, but regulations preempt the standard of hazard, is not incompatible with Federal does not expressly say whether anything care, not the underlying causes of action law, and does not unreasonably burden replaces the preempted standards of in tort. Under this interpretation, all interstate commerce. New subsection (b) care for purposes of tort suits. The focus parts of the statute are given meanings clarifies that causes of action under of that provision is clearly on who that work together effectively and serve State tort law may be available to regulates railroad safety: the Federal the safety purposes of the statute. injured parties if they are based on the government or the States. It is about Because the language of the statute is violation of the Federal standard of care improving railroad safety, for which clear, there is no need to resort to the created by a Federal regulation or order, Congress deems nationally uniform legislative history to properly interpret or violation of a plan required to be standards to be necessary in the great the statute. See Ratzlaf v. United States, created by Federal regulation or order. majority of cases. That purpose has 510 U.S. 135, 147–148 (1994) (‘‘[W]e do New subsection (c) provides that collateral consequences for tort law not resort to legislative history to cloud nothing in the section creates a Federal which new Section 20106, subsections a statutory text that is clear.’’). cause of action or Federal question (b) and (c) address. New subsection 3. Whether FRA’s Views on Preemption jurisdiction, so that tort cases can be (b)(1) creates three exceptions to the Affect Safety heard in State court. possible consequences flowing from New subsection (b) to Section 20106 subsection (a). One of those exceptions The BLET commented that FRA’s makes clear that, as the Supreme Court ((b)(1)(B)) precisely addresses an issue views on preemption serve to immunize held in Easterwood, regulations or presented in Lundeen that Congress the railroad industry for its actions or orders issued by the Secretary of wished to rectify: it allows plaintiffs to inactions, contrary to FRA’s duties as a Transportation preempt the State sue a railroad in tort for violation of its safety regulator. The BLET stated that standard of care, but not the underlying own plan, rule, or standard that it immunizing railroads from liability in cause of action in tort, thereby created pursuant to a regulation or order all cases except where a Federal preserving the ability of injured parties issued by either of the Secretaries. None regulation or statute is violated will to seek redress in court. of those exceptions covers a plan, rule, diminish safety and increase costs to the Since FRA’s Track Safety Standards or standard that a regulated entity public in the long run, asserting that the public will bear the cost of damages were involved in both Easterwood and creates for itself in order to produce a caused by private railroads who have Lundeen, they are especially apt for higher level of safety than Federal law acted negligently but not in violation of illuminating FRA’s interpretation of the requires, and such plans, rules, or a Federal law or regulation. The BLET amended statute. The Track Safety standards were not at issue in Lundeen. Standards substantially subsume the believed that FRA’s views on The key concept of Section 20106(b) is subject matters of standards for railroad preemption will make FRA’s minimum permitting actions under State law track and train speeds over it and, safety standards a ceiling above which seeking damages for personal injury, therefore, preempt State standards, both no railroad will venture, to avoid death, or property damage to proceed statutory and common law, pertaining voluntary exposure to liability flowing using a Federal standard of care. A plan, to those subjects. Nevertheless, under from a failure to adhere to its own rule, or standard that a regulated entity Section 20106(b)(1)(A), a private higher standard. The BLET maintained creates pursuant to a Federal regulation plaintiff may bring a tort action for that, thereafter, higher standards will logically fits the paradigm of a Federal damages alleging injury as a result of not come about except through standard of care—Federal law requires it violation of the Track Safety Standards, rulemaking, which it viewed as a time- such as for train speed exceeding the and determines its adequacy. A plan, consuming and somewhat imprecise maximum speed permitted under 49 rule, or standard, or portions of one, that process. In addition, the BLET CFR 213.9 over the class of track being a regulated entity creates on its own in commented that even if FRA’s views traversed. Similarly, under Section order to exceed the requirements of protect publicly-funded transportation 20106(b)(1)(B), a private plaintiff may Federal law does not fit the paradigm of agencies, the decision to do so should bring a tort action for damages alleging a Federal standard of care—Federal law be a State one. injury as a result of violation of a does not require it and, past the point FRA believes that the BLET’s railroad’s continuous welded rail (CWR) at which the requirements of Federal comments minimize the significance of plan required by the Track Safety law are satisfied, says nothing about its FRA’s safety regulations. FRA has Standards (the key issue in Lundeen). adequacy. That is why FRA believes issued detailed safety regulations Provisions of a railroad’s CWR plan that that Section 20106(b)(1)(B) covers the covering a broad range of areas, and has exceed the requirements of part 213 are former, but not the latter. The basic both ongoing and planned safety not included in the Federal standard of purpose of the statute—improving rulemaking activities on a variety of care. Under Section 20106(b)(1)(C), a railroad safety—is best served by topics. It is not a small matter for a private plaintiff may bring a tort action encouraging regulated entities to do railroad to maintain compliance with for damages alleging injury as a result of more than the law requires and would every applicable safety regulation issued violation of a State law, regulation, or be disserved by increasing potential tort by FRA, and that responsibility order that is not incompatible with liability of regulated entities that choose continues only to increase. In particular, subsection (a)(2), such as Ohio’s to exceed Federal standards, which this responsibility is growing as FRA regulation of minimum track clearances would discourage them from ever implements the numerous safety in rail yards found not to be preempted exceeding Federal standards again. rulemaking mandates in the RSIA of in Tyrrell v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., In this manner, Congress adroitly 2008. Moreover, the RSIA of 2008 itself 248 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2001). preserved its policy of national added to the body of railroad safety It is a settled principle of statutory uniformity of railroad safety regulation statutory laws with which railroads construction that, if the statute is clear expressed in Section 20106(a)(1) and must comply. These efforts are all and unambiguous, it must be applied assured plaintiffs in tort cases involving directed toward promoting safety—the according to its terms. Carcieri v. railroads, such as Lundeen, of their safety of railroad employees, passengers,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

and the public, overall—in a systematic the forward ends of cab cars and MU suffered at the hands of negligent and comprehensive way. locomotives in the 1999 final rule. Had railroad operators or otherwise these The BLET is clearly incorrect in FRA intended to impose restrictions in injured individuals could become a arguing that FRA is immunizing the 1999 final rule on operating this burden to the public. railroads from tort liability except where equipment in the lead, FRA may have FRA notes that it has already they violate a Federal safety standard. acted differently in imposing the addressed, above, comments that State State law, both statutory and common crashworthiness requirements that it did common law should govern railroad law, is preempted only where FRA’s on this equipment. This very final rule safety issues. The 9/11 Commission Act regulations substantially subsume the FRA is issuing today will enhance of 2007 expressly clarified the criteria subject matter of the State law and crashworthiness requirements for cab providing for State law causes of action FRA’s regulations, while extensive, are cars and MU locomotives, specifically but left untouched the provisions in not encyclopedic. The BLET’s recognizing that this equipment is Section 20106 governing national contention that a railroad that complies operated as the leading units of uniformity of regulation. Once the with the Federal standard of care set by passenger trains. Secretary of Transportation has covered Federal law should nevertheless be held Finally, FRA believes that the a subject matter through a regulation or to be negligent for the very behavior comments raised essentially disregard order, and thus established a Federal required by Federal law would make a the possibility that FRA requirements standard of care, Section 20106 nullity of Federal railroad safety laws. If may in fact be more restrictive than preempts State standards of care the BLET’s view were to be adopted, the State law would be. In the original regarding this subject matter. effective railroad safety standard would Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Nonetheless, FRA believes it important be set by the most recent jury verdict in rulemaking, for example, FRA to address specifically the AAJ’s claim each State and national uniformity of addressed a number of comments from that FRA’s views would prevent the safety regulation would no longer exist. State departments of transportation that victims of the Glendale incident from That is clearly inconsistent with the applying the static end strength (or seeking justice. statute and the case law. ‘‘buff’’ strength) requirements, § 238.203, The Glendale derailment was the Nor does FRA believe that our views to existing passenger equipment was too result of a deliberate, criminal act. The on preemption will preclude railroads restrictive. See 64 FR 25544–25545. perpetrator was found guilty of 11 from exceeding Federal railroad safety FRA also addressed similar comments counts of murder. Surely, nothing FRA standards. Railroads regularly exceed on other provisions of the rule, such as has said about Federal preemption these standards now. A railroad that from the Washington State Department should be construed in any way to mean abides only by the minimum Federal of Transportation, which believed FRA that victims of the Glendale derailment safety standards would constantly run had not justified the requirements for may not seek redress against the the risk of incurring civil penalty side structure, § 238.217. See 64 FR criminal perpetrator. liability. For example, because wheels 25608–25609. Potentially, these States Nor should anything FRA has said wear from use, no freight railroad would may have deemed less restrictive about Federal preemption be construed logically operate its fleet of rail requirements appropriate. to mean that these victims may not equipment at the very minimum Federal pursue negligence claims against safety standards for wheels; any usage of 4. Whether FRA’s Views on Preemption Metrolink. As discussed elsewhere in the equipment would potentially wear Affect Recovery for Victims of Railroad this preamble, FRA agrees that railroads the wheels out of compliance, rendering Accidents owe their passengers and employees a them defective per se under 49 CFR part The AAJ asserted that Federal high degree of care and that victims of 215. Similarly, no railroad would preemption would prevent victims of railroad accidents may hold railroads logically maintain its track to the very the 2005 Glendale, CA, Metrolink accountable in tort for their actions. minimum standards allowed by FRA’s derailment from seeking justice, that Surely nothing FRA has said should be Track Safety Standards, as the railroad common carriers like Metrolink owe the interpreted to preclude a claim for should know that any usage of the track highest degree of care to their negligence based on a railroad’s failure could potentially bring it out of passengers, and that if a court affords to comply with a Federal law, standard, compliance by, for example, widening deference to FRA’s preamble, the NPRM or order or, where none of those apply, the gage. See 49 CFR 213.9. Further, as would effectively render that obligation State law. In this regard, FRA believes discussed above, FRA believes that meaningless. Similar to other comments that the AAJ’s comments significantly Congress has encouraged railroads to that have been raised, the AAJ minimize the degree to which railroads exceed Federal safety standards and that commented that State common law are in fact responsible for complying Section 20106 does not increase the should govern railroad safety issues in with a broad range of safety laws, potential tort liability of railroads that that they are unique to each community regulations (such as this final rule), and choose to do so. and therefore more effectively addressed orders, with a host of new requirements In addition, FRA disagrees that its under State law. The AAJ believed that arising from the RSIA of 2008, as noted duties as a safety regulator preclude it Federal regulations cannot effectively above. To a considerable degree, this from providing its views on the ensure that the public is protected from reflects a difference of view over preemptive effect of its regulations. A hazards caused by a railroad’s inability whether safety standards are better set variety of considerations go into setting to follow operating rules. The AAJ by twelve jurors good and true, most of safety standards, including their maintained that Federal regulations are whom probably do not know anything relationship to other safety laws and minimum standards and are not about railroad safety, or by experts in standards. For example, as noted in the intended to provide maximum railroad safety to whom Congress has NPRM, FRA has directed extensive protection, asserting that the justice assigned the task. Of course, those jurors efforts to provide for the safety of Tier system offers a deterrent against railroad can do a fine job of finding the facts and I passenger-occupied equipment companies’ violations of Federal, State, applying the legal standard to them. In operated as the leading units of and local regulations. The AAJ stated a recent case involving Federal passenger trains, such as by providing that the public needs a mechanism to preemption under a U.S. Food and Drug for increased collision post strength for compensate individuals for losses Administration (FDA) regulation, the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1211

Supreme Court eloquently explained operations on passenger railroads they as to the preemptive effect of FRA’s why Congress’s decision to preempt own since such a restriction would comprehensive regulation of passenger State common law makes sense: conflict with the NPRM. Yet, the CPUC equipment safety, and the safe operation [I]n the context of this legislation then understood that if the State wishes of cab cars and MU locomotives in excluding common-law duties from the scope to increase the load-bearing capability of particular, when the State or local of pre-emption would make little sense. State collision posts, corner posts and other governmental entity is acting in a tort law that requires a manufacturer’s structural elements, it may where it is regulatory capacity. Nor does FRA mean catheters to be safer, but hence less effective, the owner of the passenger railroad. The in any way to suggest that because than the model the FDA has approved CPUC asserted that FRA was in effect States and local entities may act in a disrupts the federal scheme no less than state establishing a Federal public safety private capacity concerning their own regulatory law to the same effect. Indeed, one policy that permits States to raise safety railroad, a State or local court or jury would think that tort law, applied by juries requirements above minimum Federal under a negligence or strict-liability standard, has the ability to decide how the is less deserving of preservation. A state standards on railroads they own but railroad should have acted. FRA makes statute, or a regulation adopted by a state limits States to the minimum standards clear that its views on a State or local agency, could at least be expected to apply on private railroads. The CPUC believed entity’s ability to run its own railroad do cost-benefit analysis similar to that applied that this policy would severely limit not extend to a State or local court or by the experts at the FDA: How many more State police powers even when State jury’s ability to apply a standard of care lives will be saved by a device which, along regulation neither conflicts with Federal that deviates from the Federal standard with its greater effectiveness, brings a greater law or regulation nor unreasonably of care established by an FRA regulation risk of harm? A jury, on the other hand, sees burdens interstate commerce. or order. only the cost of a more dangerous design, and FRA appreciates the CPUC’s Additionally, FRA sought to make is not concerned with its benefits; the comments for purposes of clarifying clear in the NPRM that even when the patients who reaped those benefits are not FRA’s discussion in the NPRM represented in court. As Justice BREYER State or local governmental entity acts concerning the application of explained in Lohr, it is implausible that the in this private capacity and directs that preemption to the actions of a State or MDA [Medical Device Amendments] was its passenger railroad operate in a local entity in the role of ‘‘owner’’ of a meant to ‘‘grant greater power (to set state manner more stringent than FRA’s railroad versus those of a State or local standards ‘different from, or in addition to’ requirements, it may not direct that its federal standards) to a single state jury than entity in the role of regulator of a railroad operate in a manner to state officials acting through state railroad. FRA has pointed out that administrative or legislative lawmaking commuter rail service is typically inconsistent with FRA’s requirements. processes.’’ 518 U.S., at 504, 116 S.Ct. 2240. provided by public benefit corporations The CPUC’s comments indicate that That perverse distinction is not required or chartered by State or local governments. there may have been some confusion on even suggested by the broad language This legal arrangement essentially this point, however. The CPUC believed Congress chose in the MDA,FN4 and we will that FRA has ‘‘approved’’ of cab car- not turn somersaults to create it. places the State or local entity in the role of ‘‘owner’’ of the railroad, and FRA forward operations of Tier I passenger Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. 128 S.Ct. 999, sought to make clear that when a State trains, and that, as a result, States may 1008 (U.S., 2008). (Footnote omitted.) or local governmental entity acts in this not prohibit these operations on The Supreme Court’s logic is equally capacity to direct that the railroad passenger railroads they own since such applicable to regulations under the exceed FRA’s standards, it is not acting a restriction would conflict with the Federal railroad safety laws, including as a regulator of railroad operations. NPRM. FRA did not intend such this one. Instead, it is effectively acting in a conclusions to be drawn. First, FRA private capacity concerning the makes clear that our regulations permit 5. How a State May Act as the Owner but do not require cab car-forward and Not the Regulator of a Railroad operation of its own railroad. The fact that it is a public entity does not operations of Tier I-compliant passenger FRA received comment from the somehow convert its action into a law, trains; there is no FRA approval process. CPUC indicating that there was regulation, or order related to railroad Moreover, the fact that FRA’s confusion as to what FRA intended to safety that invokes the statutory regulations permit cab car-forward convey by explaining the difference provisions governing the preemptive operations does not prohibit a State, between a State acting as an ‘‘owner’’ of effect of FRA’s regulation of this area. acting in a private capacity as the owner a railroad—in distinction to a regulator Specifically, FRA intended to make of its own railroad, from deciding not to of a railroad—in directing a railroad’s clear that when a State acts in this use cab car-forward operations. For operations. The CPUC commented that private capacity to direct its own example, in no way would a State’s it understood that FRA interprets railroad to exceed FRA’s requirements decision directing its own railroad to Section 20106 so that States that own or or prohibit its own railroad from doing operate each of its trains with a control a passenger railroad may impose something FRA’s requirements permit, conventional locomotive in the lead more stringent standards on their it need not be concerned with satisfying conflict with any regulatory decision railroad(s) than those prescribed in the Section 20106(a)’s three-part, FRA has made. Both methods of NPRM, as long as the more stringent ‘‘essentially local safety or security operation are permitted under FRA’s State standards are not in conflict with hazard’’ exception for State regulation, regulations and operators are free to the Federal standards and are wholly as the State’s action is wholly distinct, choose among permitted methods of distinct and not derived from the and does not derive, from the exception operation. (See the separate discussion statutory provision—i.e., not a part of provided in the statute. This latter point on push-pull train operations, below.) the State’s regulatory authority over may not have been conveyed clearly The CPUC’s comments indicate that it passenger railroads but resulting from enough in the NPRM; FRA is restating understood the overall issue when it its status as an owner of a passenger it here for clarity. Further, FRA makes noted that if the State wishes to increase railroad. The CPUC then concluded that clear that even though States and local the load-bearing capability of collision since FRA has ‘‘approved’’ of cab car- entities may act in a private capacity posts, corner posts and other structural forward operations of Tier I passenger concerning their own railroads, this fact elements of its equipment, it may if it trains, States may not prohibit these does not alter in any way FRA’s views is the owner of the passenger railroad.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Indeed, that analysis applies in the same variety of unsafe railroad practices, While the authority does not apply in way to cab car-forward operations of stating that the role of FRA is to adopt this situation, Congress has addressed Tier I passenger trains. regulations to protect the traveling Congressman Schiff’s concerns in FRA also wishes to make clear that in public from injury and death because of another way to some extent. The statute no way did FRA intend to convey that unsafe railroad operations and that State provides that States may regulate until freight railroads operate under less and local regulators must be allowed to the Secretary of Transportation stringent safety standards—including take further steps to ensure that public prescribes a regulation or issues an those voluntarily imposed—because the transportation is as safe as possible. He order covering the subject matter of the railroads are typically owned by non- additionally commented that any State regulation. The statute also governmental entities. The CPUC regulatory action should be avoided that provides that a State may adopt or additionally commented that the may preempt States and localities from continue in force an additional or more balance determined by FRA in weighing regulating railroad safety in ways that stringent law, regulation, or order freight railroad safety with the business do not affect interstate commerce but do related to railroad safety or security of freight railroading is heavily slanted improve passenger safety, and believed when the law, regulation, or order is towards the railroad industry at the that preemption should seldom be necessary to eliminate or reduce an expense of public safety since the public employed but on those rare occasions essentially local safety hazard, is not is subjected to ‘‘minimum’’ railroad when it is required and that it should be incompatible with a law, regulation, or safety regulations and the States are used to set a floor and never a ceiling order of the United States Government, prohibited from requiring more on the public’s safety and well-being. As and does not unreasonably burden stringent regulation. In the NPRM, FRA a result, he requested that FRA clarify interstate commerce. Thus, while compared a State or local governmental that Federal preemption will not affect Congress prescribed national uniformity entity’s ability to act in a private local and State limitations on the use of of railroad safety regulation, it also capacity concerning the operation of its cab cars as the leading units of provided exceptions through which own railroad to that of a non- passenger trains, asserting that such States can address matters Congress or governmental entity that owns a freight regulations are designed to increase FRA has not. Where FRA does regulate, railroad, for purposes of illustrating how public safety and will not affect the the clear expectation is that the States the public entity is permitted to act in national operations of rail service will participate in the rulemaking a private capacity to direct that its providers or rail car manufacturers. process. If a State has a better idea or passenger railroad operate in a manner perceives a risk others have not seen, more stringent than FRA’s requirements FRA notes first that the nature of Federal preemption under Section that State has several avenues through and not implicate preemption concerns. which it can get its concerns addressed. FRA believed this comparison 20106, even as amended, is that States and localities are restricted from acting The State can petition FRA for particularly appropriate because freight rulemaking. The State can participate in railroads—like passenger railroads— as regulators concerning the operation of trains with cab cars in the lead, given RSAC and help formulate regularly exceed FRA’s safety standards recommendations to the Administrator as a matter of course, and they are Federal regulation of the matter. Nonetheless, as discussed earlier, FRA of FRA for regulatory action. The State encouraged to do so. Surely, a can comment on notices of proposed governmental entity that owns a freight believes that in fact States and localities have the capability to act in a non- rulemaking FRA issues. In these ways, railroad may choose to exceed FRA’s State ideas and concerns can be requirements without concern for regulatory way either as owners or embodied in uniform national implicating the statutory provision funders of commuter rail systems to regulations in keeping with the policy governing preemption. While the restrict the operation of trains with cab Congress established in the statute. The CPUC’s comment may not have been cars in the lead, and, preemption overwhelming majority of railroad directed to this discussion in the NPRM, concerns aside, could seemingly do so safety issues are capable of being FRA believes that this clarification is more directly. FRA will use the example handled in uniform national helpful to place the discussion in a of Metrolink, which operates wholly regulations, and should be. fuller context. within the State of California and is a joint powers authority comprised of five FRA also notes that although the 6. How State Regulation of Push-Pull county transportation planning study cited by Congressman Schiff Operations Is Preempted agencies: The Los Angeles County tended to favor conventional Congressman Adam Schiff Metropolitan Transportation Authority, locomotive-led train service over cab commented that FRA’s views in the the Orange County Transportation car- and MU locomotive-led train NPRM may have the effect of Authority, the Riverside County service for resistance to derailment in preempting State laws on pushing trains Transportation Commission, San highway-rail grade-crossing collisions with cab cars in the lead. He stated that Bernardino Associated Governments, on the raw data, no statistically in response to the January 2005 and the Ventura County Transportation significant difference was found Metrolink derailment in Glendale, CA, Commission. FRA makes clear that the between the modes of operation. See he had placed in the FY2006 representatives of those California ‘‘Report to the House and Senate transportation appropriations bill a counties who are designated as Appropriations Committees: The Safety measure that led FRA to conduct a members of Metrolink’s board of of Push-Pull and Multiple-Unit historical study of push-pull passenger directors are not preempted from Locomotive Passenger Rail Operations,’’ rail operations that found that directing that Metrolink not run trains June 2006, available on FRA’s Web site derailments and general fatalities were with cab cars as the leading units. Nor at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/ somewhat higher when push-pull trains would the State of California be safety/062606FRAPushPull were operated in the push mode. He preempted from conditioning any grant LetterandReport.pdf. The accident believed that FRA’s views could of State funds to Metrolink on its not record did show a higher fatality rate for threaten the authority of States to running trains with cab cars as the occupants of cab car-led trains than require a higher level of passenger train leading units. Preemption does not occupants of conventional locomotive- safety or to seek redress for a wide apply in either situation. led trains in commuter service, yet

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1213

(passenger occupied) MU locomotive- and declare retroactive and future courts address questions about the led trains compiled a superior safety application of Federal preemption to the intent, and that Congress can step in record and experienced fatality rates issue of pushing passenger trains with and overrule the judiciary as was done less than conventional locomotive-led cab cars in the lead. with passage of the 9/11 Commission trains or any competing mode of In response to these comments, which Act of 2007. transportation. The report explained are also addressed in part below, FRA Similarly, the AAJ commented that that FRA’s broad approach to safety is notes that it did explain why it was FRA does not have authority to regulate to focus on areas of the highest risk and discussing preemption in the NPRM, with force of law, absent a clear and thus the greatest potential for safety stating that ‘‘since issues have arisen express delegation of that authority from gains and that, by contrast, a narrower regarding the preemptive effect of this Congress. The AAJ stated that FRA may focus on one aspect of the safety issues part on the safety of operating a cab car exercise preemptive authority if (cab car- or MU locomotive-led as the leading unit of a passenger train, Congress has explicitly delegated the operations versus conventional FRA believes that clarification of its authority and does so in a way that is locomotive-led operations) could result views on the matter is needed to address consistent with Congressional intent. in simply shifting risk from one place to any misunderstanding.’’ 72 FR 42028. In The AAJ claimed that Congress has another. FRA noted that compared to particular, in discussing the preemptive never delegated preemptive authority to cab car- or MU locomotive-led trains, effect of part 238, FRA sought to FRA and has provided instead a very conventional locomotive led-trains may distinguish preemption of State limited scope of preemption under reduce the number of fatalities due to regulation from a State’s ability to act in FRSA, asserting that FRA is not loss of occupant volume at the colliding a private capacity to restrict cab cars permitted to adopt regulations which interface, but in more serious events the from operating as the leading units of preempt an individual’s common law structural crush is passed back to other passenger trains, as discussed above, tort remedies. The AAJ further areas of the train, potentially increasing thereby effectively achieving the same commented that Congress has not the risk to other train occupants. The result. In fact, despite FRA’s efforts to shown any intent to preempt State tort September 12, 2008 head-on train clarify its views, comments on the law actions or to prevent causes of collision in Chatsworth, CA, which NPRM demonstrate that there still is action based on Federal law and resulted in the deaths of 25 people and confusion as to FRA’s views. By the regulations, citing case law. The AAJ the injury of numerous others, involved statements in the preamble of this final cited in particular to Sprietsma v. a conventional locomotive-led rule, FRA hopes to definitively clear up Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002), to Metrolink train. The NTSB and FRA are this confusion so that FRA’s views are support its assertion that any currently investigating the collision and understood as FRA intends that they be. Congressional desire to achieve the NTSB has not yet determined the Moreover, FRA believes that a reading uniformity in transportation safety probable cause of the accident. of the NPRM shows anything but an regulation does not justify preemption Nevertheless, preliminary information intent to hide its views on preemption of common law claims. indicates that most, if not all, of the concerning the operation of a cab car as FRA notes that some of these passenger fatalities resulted from the leading unit of a passenger train. comments overlap with other comments structural crush caused by collision The NPRM concerned the that FRA has addressed. As to energy passed through the locomotive. crashworthiness of cab cars and MU comments questioning FRA’s authority FRA has not evaluated the Chatsworth locomotives and was not that large a to express its views on preemption, FRA accident to determine whether the rulemaking document. The NPRM itself believes its authority to do so arises out outcome would have been different had contained a table of contents, which of its very authority to preempt State the cab car at the rear of the train been identified where ‘‘Federalism and local laws. There is no question that the leading unit. However, the Implications’’ were discussed in the the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of Chatsworth accident tragically preamble. See 72 FR 42017. The section the U.S. Constitution provides Congress exemplifies that risks are inherent in on ‘‘Federalism Implications’’ in turn with the power to preempt State law. any mode of passenger train operation pointed the reader further to the ‘‘Preemption may result not only from and that the safety focus must discussion of § 238.13 (Preemptive action taken by Congress itself: A necessarily be broader than just effect) in the section-by-section analysis. Federal agency acting within the scope restricting cab cars from operating as the Nonetheless, to the extent that a of its congressionally delegated leading units of passenger trains. member of the public interested in the authority may preempt state regulation.’’ safety of cab cars and MU locomotives Louisiana Public Service Commission v. 7. Whether It Was Necessary To Discuss may not read beyond the Summary FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 369 (1986). Since Preemption in the NPRM section of this final rule, FRA is stating Congress provided that delegation very The AAJ commented that inclusion of in the Summary that this final rule forthrightly in Section 20106 and the ‘‘overbroad’’ preemption analysis in the clarifies FRA’s views on the preemptive Supreme Court has interpreted the NPRM was unnecessary because it has effect of this part. statute to provide for preemption of no substantive effect on the regulation State law by FRA regulations, there can and is not binding on courts. Moreover, 8. Whether FRA Has Authority To be no real question that FRA has the AAJ claimed that FRA provided no Express Its Views on Preemption authority to preempt State regulation. reasoned explanation for what it The BLET stated that FRA’s See the discussion elsewhere in this believed was an unauthorized attempt comments on preemption improperly preamble of the Easterwood and to expand the reach of FRSA address matters reserved for the Shanklin cases. preemption. The AAJ also stated that Legislative and Judicial Branches and By virtue of FRA’s authority to FRA buried the preemption discussion raise serious separation-of-powers preempt State law and the President’s within the text of the preamble without questions. The BLET termed ‘‘troubling’’ direction in Executive Order 13132 that any mention of it in the summary of the that FRA’s views were the latest in a agencies discuss the preemptive effect NPRM, and believed that the title and series of similar actions by Executive of their rules in the preambles to those summary of the NPRM hid the fact that Branch agencies. The BLET stated that rules, FRA may express its views as to FRA appeared to circumvent Congress Congress expresses its intent and that the preemptive effect of its regulations.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

The BLET surely would expect FRA to when the Secretary of Transportation forward operation of Tier II passenger do so if a State or locality were to pass has issued a regulation or order covering equipment preempted all State and local a law, or a State or local court were to a particular subject matter. See prior law concerning the subject of cab car- issue an order, that potentially discussion of Section 20106. forward operation of Tier I equipment, endangered the safety of the BLET’s including common law. 9. What Impelled FRA’s Views on members and which FRA believed was FRA notes that the BLET’s comments Preemption preempted by Federal law. In this highlight an inadvertent error in the regard, in providing for national The BLET asserted that FRA’s NPRM in which the verb ‘‘to make’’ was uniformity of regulation, Section 20106 discussion of preemption in the NPRM stated in the past tense rather than the protects against the potential for ever- was a ‘‘naked attempt’’ to influence the present tense. In the passage set out changing and conflicting State and local outcome of a judicial appeal in which above, FRA had intended to state the standards adopted by individual juries, a railroad appellant was the defendant. following: which could compromise railroad The BLET stated that FRA made the However, FRA makes clear that the very safety. Moreover, it would be irrational outstanding claim that the possibility fact that it identified the possibility of to forbid FRA from expressing its views that the 1999 final rule would be specifying additional regulations did not as to the preemptive effect of its amended at some unspecified later date nullify the preemptive effect of the final rule, regulations when such FRA views have preempts all State law by the complete both in terms of the issues addressed by the in fact been found to merit deference. absence of a standard, which specific requirements imposed, and those as See Union Pacific RR v. California preemption FRA then activated to which FRA considered specific retroactively by publishing the NPRM. requirements but ultimately chose to allow a Public Utilities Comm’n, 346 F.3d 851, more flexible approach. 867 (9th Cir. 2003). That case, in which In this regard, the BLET cited the FRA argued that some of its regulations following passage from the NPRM: Emphasis added. FRA does recognize that in stating ‘‘to make’’ in the past are preemptive and some are not, also FRA specifically stated in the final rule well illustrates the benefits for the that additional effort needed to be made to tense, the passage erroneously conveys courts of FRA clearly discussing what enhance corner post safety standards for cab that FRA made that explicit statement in FRA intends to preempt and what it cars and MU locomotives—leading to the the 1999 final rule. FRA did not make does not. The Supreme Court has made NPRM that FRA is issuing today. 64 FR at that statement in the 1999 final rule. clear that it expects such agency 25607. However, FRA made clear that the Nonetheless, in a similarly-worded discussions of preemption. very fact that it identified the possibility of passage on the next page of the NPRM, specifying additional regulations did not As we explained in Hillsborough the NPRM correctly stated the nullify the preemptive effect of the final rule, following: County v. Automated Medical both in terms of the issues addressed by the Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 718, specific requirements imposed, and those as FRA’s decision to revisit in this NPRM 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2377, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 to which FRA considered specific subjects addressed in the 1999 final rule does (1985), it is appropriate to expect an requirements but ultimately chose to allow a not change the preemptive effect of the administrative regulation to declare any more flexible approach. comprehensive requirements imposed in that rule. As noted earlier, FRA’s recognition in intention to pre-empt state law with 72 FR 42030. The BLET asserted its the 1999 final rule that additional work some specificity: belief that FRA transformed the addition needed to be completed to enhance the ‘‘[B]ecause agencies normally address of security language to the rail safety crashworthiness of cab cars and MU problems in a detailed manner and can speak preemption statute in 2002 into locomotives does not nullify the preemptive through a variety of means, * * * we can preemption of State common law effect of the standards then imposed for this expect that they will make their intentions pertaining to standards that were not equipment. clear if they intend for their regulations to be imposed in 1999. The BLET commented 72 FR 42031. As this passage helps exclusive. that the 2002 amendment to then- makes clear, FRA’s point in citing the California Coastal Com’n v. Granite existing Section 20106 did nothing more 1999 final rule was surely not to change Rock Co. 480 U.S. 572, 583 (1987). than extend current safety preemption what was stated in that final rule. FRA’s FRA notes in particular that the case to matters of rail security and, given that point was to note that in promulgating cited by the AAJ, Sprietsma v. Mercury the NPRM is a proposed safety rule, the the 1999 final rule FRA identified the Marine, does not apply to national BLET contended that the mere fact that possibility of specifying additional uniformity of railroad safety regulation Congress extended preemption from regulations to enhance safety after the or the preemption of State common law safety to security matters provided no completion of additional research by such regulations. Sprietsma involved basis whatsoever for FRA to address the efforts, but that identifying that a different statute, the Federal Boat subject. Further, the BLET alleged that possibility did not nullify the Safety Act, which contains an express FRA ‘‘put its thumbs on the scale of preemptive effect of that final rule on savings clause stating that ‘‘[c]ompliance justice’’ in stating that FRA had State or local standards. In the same with this chapter [46 U.S.C. chapter 43] prohibited cab car-forward operations way, FRA’s recognition in this final rule or standards, regulations, or orders for Tier II but not for Tier I equipment that fuller application of CEM prescribed under this chapter does not and that FRA’s choice was intended to technologies to cab cars and MU relieve a person from liability at be preemptive of State standards. The locomotives could enhance their safety common law or under State law.’’ 46 BLET maintained that there is is not intended to nullify the U.S.C. 4311(g). Common law standards substantial evidence that FRA published preemptive effect of the standards of care are not preempted under the its preamble discussion to assist arising from the rulemaking. FRA Federal Boat Safety Act, because Metrolink in its appeal of a California reiterates that it continually strives to Congress expressly said otherwise. (The court decision in which preemption enhance railroad safety, has an active United States itself argued as amicus relating to cab car-forward operations research program focused on doing so, curiae in support of the Supreme was an issue. The BLET stated that and sets safety standards that it believes Court’s holding.) Congress has, when the 1999 final rule was published, are necessary and appropriate for the however, expressly provided for Federal FRA never even suggested that the time that they are issued with a view to preemption in the railroad safety area prohibition pertaining to cab car- amending those standards as

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1215

circumstances change. If FRA’s effect of its regulations and orders but When, however, it appears that a regulations were not accorded has an obligation to do so when issues court or courts have misconstrued preemptive effect merely because FRA arise as to their preemptive effect. The FRA’s regulations, the agency has an may amend its regulations at some point NPRM was not the first occasion for obligation in the interest of safety to in the future, preemption would never FRA to express its views on the correct the record. After all, FRA issued apply, nor, it seems, would preemptive preemptive effect of this part on the the regulation or interpretation as it did effect seemingly be accorded to any safety of operating a cab car as the because that represented FRA’s best DOT regulation because DOT may leading unit of a passenger train, and expert judgment concerning how to amend any of its regulations in the FRA clarified its views in light of advance railroad safety. Necessarily, in future. misunderstandings that had arisen. That the agency’s view, a misconstruction of In addition, FRA believes that the some confusion appears to have its regulations is likely to impair BLET’s comments make too much out of remained even after FRA did so in the railroad safety and permitting that FRA’s mention of the Homeland NPRM is reason for FRA to believe that impairment to continue is unacceptable. Both the technical aspects of railroad Security Act of 2002’s amendment to 49 it may not have been clear enough, safety and preemption under 49 U.S.C. U.S.C. 20106 that added language which has led FRA to be detailed in its 20106 are arcane and difficult subjects concerning the preemptive effect of rail responses to all of the preemption security regulations and orders. See 72 on which the regulated community and comments on the NPRM. Preemption is courts, alike, are entitled to the best FR 42028. FRA noted that Section 20106 both complex and important; it merits had been amended and FRA stated that explanations the technical experts at extensive discussion when that is FRA can provide. In the case that it was proposing to amend § 238.13 necessary to convey a complete (Preemptive effect) so that the regulatory appears to concern the BLET, it seems understanding of the issues. It was section was more consistent with the that the discussion of preemption in the necessary in this NPRM because the revised statutory language addressing NPRM did assist a California appellate preemptive effect of FRA’s actions had railroad security. Id. After doing so, court, and that is entirely appropriate. widely been misunderstood. FRA FRA then explained as follows: recognizes that the NPRM was 10. Whether FRA’s Views on In addition, since issues have arisen published during ongoing litigation Preemption Affect FELA regarding the preemptive effect of this part concerning the operation of a train with The BLET asserted that FRA’s views on the safety of operating a cab car as the on preemption conflict with leading unit of a passenger train, FRA a cab car as the leading unit, but the believes that clarification of its views on the underlying incident, other incidents, legislatively promulgated and judicially matter is needed to address any and concerns as to enhancing the end recognized rights under the Federal misunderstanding. As described below, structure of cab cars and MU Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 through a variety of initiatives spanning more locomotives were the impetus for U.S.C. 51 et seq. (FELA provides that than a decade, FRA has comprehensively and issuing the NPRM and for its timing. employees of common carriers by intentionally covered the subject matter of FRA cannot stand silent about the railroad engaged in interstate or foreign the requirements for passenger equipment, meaning and effect of its rules because commerce may recover for work-related planning for the safe use of passenger litigation is underway. Litigation is injuries caused in whole or in part by equipment, and the manner in which their employer’s negligence.) The BLET passenger equipment is used. often underway or imminent somewhere. If litigation were a bar to stated that FELA has been liberally Id. It is the discussion ‘‘described below’’ rulemaking or to full explanations of construed and that juries are given great that resulted in virtually every comment rules FRA issues, very little rulemaking leeway to determine whether there has made by the BLET on FRA’s preemption been negligence or not. The BLET noted would get done. FRA tries to explain its views. FRA reiterates those views that FRA did not mention whether its regulatory actions fully and clearly except as they are expressly changed in views on preemption extended to FELA, trusting that those explanations will this final rule. FRA clearly separated but the BLET believed that FRA has mention of the 2002 statutory assist the regulated community and the created unnecessary tension with FELA amendment from the rest of the courts alike and believing that it is our by limiting theories of liability to discussion. FRA notes that it proposed job to do so. FRA does that to advance violations of positive regulation—and amending § 238.13 in part to reflect railroad safety. FRA is consistently an excluding from liability that which has expressly that FRA’s Passenger advocate for railroad safety, and its rules not been regulated. The BLET Equipment Safety Standards have a role and interpretations of those rules are recommended that FRA avoid creating in rail security. For example, if a intended to protect and enhance the any such conflict by essentially limiting passenger train collision were caused by safety of railroad employees and FRA’s statements on preemption to intentional terrorist act, FRA’s passengers, and citizens in the vicinity what the statute expressly states and crashworthiness requirements would of railroads, and the property of referencing the statute. help to protect survivable space for the everyone within range. Of course, As the BLET points out, FRA made no train occupants, FRA’s fire safety expressions of the agency’s views are reference to FELA in FRA’s discussion standards would help lessen the likely to help or hurt the case of some of preemption in the NPRM. FRA does likelihood that a fire would result, particular litigant, but that is not FRA’s not understand the basis for the BLET’s FRA’s passenger train emergency system concern. As recited above, Union Pacific concern that FRA is somehow ‘‘limiting requirements would help facilitate both RR v. California Public Utilities theories of liability to violations of passenger escape and rescue, and other Comm’n, 346 F.3d 851, 867 (9th Cir. positive regulation—and excluding from FRA standards would likely help 2003), well illustrates that FRA’s liability that which has not been mitigate the consequences of the act. forthright and clear expression of its regulated.’’ Neither the NPRM nor this While FRA has addressed the BLET views may help one litigant on some final rule does that. The statute and the comment as to what was said in the claims and the other side on other regulation plainly state that a Federal 1999 final rule, FRA again emphasizes claims in the same case. FRA does not standard of care created by regulation that FRA is not only authorized to take or alter its positions based on who displaces State standards of care express its views as to the preemptive the litigants are. covering the same subject matter. State

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

standards of care covering other subject Locomotive (Boiler) Inspection Act passenger cars under part 238. The matter are not preempted. FRA’s (LBIA) to requirements affecting subject matter of part 238 is broader discussion was limited to Federal locomotives and the NPRM would affect than just locomotives and passenger railroad safety laws, regulations, and locomotive requirements. (The LBIA cars, covering all passenger equipment, orders for which FRA has responsibility was repealed and reenacted as positive which includes baggage, private, and to administer or enforce. FELA is a law in 49 U.S.C. ch. 207 (sections other cars. Because of the broad subject railroad labor law, which FRA neither 20701–20703), ‘‘Locomotives,’’ by Public matter of part 238 and the fact that the administers nor enforces. FELA is also Law 103–272 (July 5, 1994); FRA is (former) FRSA rulemaking authority a Federal law and, therefore, not nonetheless referring to these provisions now codified in 49 U.S.C. 20103 was a expressly a subject of preemption under by their former name as they are basis for the rule, FRA originally cited 49 U.S.C. 20106. Occasionally, however, commonly known.) The AAR stated that the FRSA preemption provision conflicts arise between Federal statutes the LBIA preempts all requirements codified in 49 U.S.C. 20106. However, and courts must resolve them. Courts pertaining to locomotives, regardless of that action was not meant to exclude the have concluded that, in certain whether there is a Federal requirement possibility of preemption under the circumstances, Federal railroad safety addressing the subject matter of a State LBIA applying as well. laws may preclude some FELA claims. requirement. According to the AAR, a FRA has not been presented with an Several courts have decided, for requirement could be preempted by the actual issue involving a passenger example, that the FRSA precludes an LBIA even if it is not preempted under locomotive where FRA views on the action under FELA where a railroad Section 20106. The AAR noted that FRA effect of Federal preemption would employee claims that he or she was recognizes preemption under the LBIA, differ depending on whether injured because of a negligently citing 49 CFR 230.5, the preemption preemption under FRSA or the LBIA excessive train speed, and where the provision for FRA’s Steam Locomotive applies. Because the courts have train was not exceeding the speed limit Inspection and Maintenance Standards, consistently held since Napier in 1926 set by FRSA regulations. These courts which states in part: ‘‘The Locomotive that the LBIA preempts the field of the have reasoned that permitting such Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701– design, the construction, and the FELA claims would be contrary to 20703) preempts all State laws or material of every part of the locomotive ‘‘Congress’ intent [in passing the FRSA] regulations concerning locomotive and tender and all appurtenances that railroad safety regulations be safety. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line thereof, FRA has presumed that nationally uniform to the extent R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926).’’ preemption under the LBIA applies. practicable.’’ Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., The AAR added that in issuing this Nevertheless, it is good regulatory 241 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2001); see standard, FRA explained that while practice to say so explicitly and FRA ‘‘ also Waymire v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., Section 20106 would ordinarily set the now does that. FRA amends § 238.13 at 218 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2000); Rice standard for preemption of a rule issued this time citing the LBIA. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Pac. Ry. under [49 U.S.C.] 20701, the broader field preemption provided by the LBIA V. Section-by-Section Analysis Co., 955 F.Supp. 739, 740–41 (E.D.Ky. (as interpreted by the courts) seems the 1997); Thirkill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238, more appropriate standard to apply in 950 F.Supp. 1105, 1107 (N.D.Ala. 1996). Passenger Equipment Safety Standards light of this rule’s subject matter.’’ 64 FR But see Earwood v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 62828, 62836 (Nov. 17, 1999). The AAR Subpart A—General 845 F.Supp. 880, 891 (N.D.Ga. 1993) believed the same is true here and that (concluding that a FELA action based on Section 238.13 Preemptive Effect to portray the scope of Federal excessive speed was not precluded by preemption accurately, § 238.13 needs This section informs the public as to the FRSA). to refer to both Section 20106 and the FRA’s views regarding the preemptive Tufariello v. Long Island R. Co., 458 LBIA. The AAR suggested amending effect of this part. As discussed above, F.3d 80, 86 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2006). Nothing § 238.13 by adding the above-referenced FRA is amending this section to in this final rule changes how courts statement from § 230.5. conform to the revisions made to resolve perceived conflicts between FRA believes that the AAR is correct Section 20106 by the 9/11 Commission Federal railroad safety laws and FELA and that preemption under the LBIA Act of 2007. claims. As the examples cited above also applies to locomotives covered by FRA notes that its discussion of the show, Federal courts were already part 238. FRA recognizes that the LBIA comments raised on the NPRM provides applying preclusion analyses based on has been consistently interpreted as detailed analysis of the preemptive Section 20106 to reconcile Federal totally preempting the field of effect of this part, and FRA is not railroad safety laws, where they apply, locomotive safety, extending to the repeating that discussion here. FRA also and FELA. Courts regularly interpret design, the construction, and the notes that the preemptive effect of this Federal statutes that present potential material of every part of the locomotive part is discussed in the section on conflicts, and FRA anticipates that and tender and all appurtenances ‘‘Federal Implications’’ in Section VI.D. courts hearing FELA cases will have thereof. Although the LBIA has no of the preamble to this final rule. little difficulty reconciling FELA and preemption provision, it has been held Subpart C—Specific Requirements for the current text of Section 20106. to preempt the entire field of locomotive Tier I Passenger Equipment safety. See Napier v. Atlantic Coast R.R., 11. Whether Preemption Applies Under 272 U.S. 605 (1926). The 1999 Passenger Section 238.205 Anti-Climbing the Locomotive (Boiler) Inspection Act Equipment Safety Standards final rule Mechanism The AAR commented that FRA gave was issued in part under the authority In the NPRM, FRA proposed to amend incomplete guidance on preemption by of the LBIA, sections 20701–20702, as paragraph (a) of this section to correct referring only to Section 20106 in the was the NPRM in this rulemaking. an error in the rule text. In relevant part, NPRM. While the AAR took no issue This rulemaking directly imposes this paragraph stated that ‘‘all passenger with what FRA stated regarding Section requirements on locomotives, as both equipment * * * shall have at both the 20106, the AAR pointed out that cab cars and MU locomotives are forward and rear ends an anti-climbing preemption also applies under the locomotives. They are also considered mechanism capable of resisting an

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1217

upward or downward vertical force of although FRA is amending paragraph (a) Section 238.211 Collision Posts 100,000 pounds without failure.’’ only. No change to paragraph (b) has This final rule enhances requirements However, FRA had intended that the been made or is intended. for collision posts at the forward ends words ‘‘without failure’’ actually read as Section 238.209 Forward End of cab cars and MU locomotives. The ‘‘without permanent deformation,’’ as Structure of Locomotives, Including Cab enhancements are based on the stated in the preamble accompanying Cars and MU Locomotives provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) the issuance of this paragraph. of section 5.3.1.3.1, Cab-end collision Specifically, FRA explained in the FRA is principally amending this posts, of APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. 2. accompanying preamble that the anti- section by revising it and adding a new FRA has modified the provisions of this climbing mechanism must be capable of paragraph (b) so that the forward end APTA standard for purposes of their resisting an upward or downward structure of a cab car or an MU adoption as a Federal regulation. vertical force of 100,000 pounds locomotive may comply with the FRA is setting out § 238.211 in its ‘‘without permanent deformation.’’ See requirements of appendix F to this part entirety in the rule text for ease of use. 64 FR 25604; May 12, 1999. Use of the in lieu of the requirements of either In the NPRM, FRA had elided ‘‘without permanent deformation’’ § 238.211 (Collision posts) or § 238.213 paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) and criterion is consistent with North (Corner posts), or both, provided that paragraph (b)(1) of this section, using American industry practice, and FRA the end structure is designed to protect asterisks to represent that the text of had not intended to relax that practice. the occupied volume for its full height, these paragraphs would be unchanged. Consequently, FRA had proposed to from the underframe to the anti- However, FRA is including these correct § 238.205(a) expressly to require telescoping plate (if used) or roof rails. paragraphs in this final rule so that this that the anti-climbing mechanism be See the discussion of §§ 238.211 and section, as amended, may be read more capable of resisting an upward or 238.213 and appendix F, below. easily in its entirety. downward vertical force of 100,000 In part because of this change, FRA is Paragraph (b) formerly required that pounds without permanent amending the heading of this section to each locomotive, including a cab car deformation. make clear that the requirements apply and an MU locomotive, ordered on or In comments on the NPRM, CRM was to cab cars and MU locomotives. Cab after September 8, 2000, or placed in supportive of the clarification to this cars and MU locomotives are service for the first time on or after anti-climbing provision, but CRM raised locomotives and have been subject to September 9, 2002, have two collision concern about the precedent set by the requirements of this section since its making the clarification retroactive. As posts at its forward end, each post issuance. FRA has also shortened a result, CRM wanted it made clear that capable of withstanding a 500,000- ‘‘[f]orward-facing end structure’’ to the date for the change be stated pound longitudinal force at the point ‘‘[f]orward end structure,’’ in the section prospectively in the CFR itself. even with the top of the underframe and FRA brought this issue before the heading. FRA believes that referring to a 200,000-pound longitudinal force Task Force for its consideration. The the forward or front end structure is exerted 30 inches above the joint of the consensus of the Task Force was to appropriate since this section already post to the underframe. These correct the rule text for all passenger referred to the ‘‘forward end structure’’ requirements were based on AAR equipment placed in service for the first in former paragraph (c) of the section, Standard S–580, and had been the time once the final rule takes effect, and redesignated as paragraph (a)(1)(iii), industry practice for all locomotives to leave the rule text in its original for and, as noted above, this section is built since August 1990. See 64 FR passenger equipment already placed in being amended to expressly reference 25606. Subsequently, industry service. The Task Force could not cite requirements for cab cars and MU standards for locomotive an instance where passenger equipment locomotives that are stated in this final crashworthiness were enhanced, with subject to the requirements of this rule as applying to the forward end APTA focusing on standards for section and already placed in service structure. passenger-occupied locomotives, i.e., had not been constructed with an anti- Nonetheless, FRA makes clear that it cab cars and MU locomotives, and the climbing mechanism capable of is not changing the original AAR focusing on standards for freight resisting an upward or downward requirements of this section for the skin locomotives. The AAR’s efforts helped vertical force of 100,000 pounds without covering the forward-facing end of each support development of the locomotive permanent deformation. For this reason, locomotive; FRA has only redesignated crashworthiness rulemaking, published the Task Force believed there was no these requirements as paragraph (a) of as a final rule on June 28, 2006. See 71 real safety concern in leaving the rule this section. FRA does note that an issue FR 36887. That final rule specifically text in its original for existing passenger has arisen whether the skin must be addresses the safety of conventional equipment. made of steel plate, or whether a locomotives and does not apply to FRA agrees with the Task Force’s material of lesser yield strength may be passenger-occupied locomotives. recommendation here and finds that, used. FRA makes clear that the intent of Nevertheless, FRA believes that under the circumstances, it is this section has always been to allow for conceptual approaches taken in the appropriate to modify the rule text to use of material of lesser yield strength locomotive crashworthiness final rule apply the clarification to all passenger that, due to its increased thickness, e.g., are applicable to this rulemaking, as equipment placed in service for the first provides strength at least equivalent to discussed below. To clearly delineate time on or after the effective date of the that for the steel plate specified. For the relationship between the locomotive final rule. The rule text modification instance, aluminum material of lesser crashworthiness final rule and part 238, will take place immediately for such yield strength may be used to comply FRA has inserted a cross-reference in equipment newly placed in service, with the requirements of paragraph (a) the introductory text of paragraph (b) to given that all equipment being placed in if it is of sufficient thickness to provide indicate that since the locomotive service now should meet this at least the strength equivalent to that of requirements for collision posts in requirement. a steel plate that is 1⁄2-inch thick and has subpart D of part 229 became effective FRA notes that it has set out the entire a yield strength of 25,000 pounds-per- for locomotives manufactured on or text of this section for ease of use, square-inch. after January 1, 2009, those more

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

stringent requirements—and not the discrepancy between the rule text and (c)(2)(ii) are similar to paragraphs requirements of this paragraph—apply the preamble explaining the provision, (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section. One to conventional locomotives. as well a lack of consistency within this principal difference is that the final rule In the NPRM, FRA proposed paragraph (b) as a whole. FRA has requires that each collision post be able correcting paragraph (b)(2) so that the interpreted this provision in accordance to support the specified forces for angles rule text is consistent with the clear with the preamble to the May 12, 1999 up to 15 degrees from the longitudinal. intent of the provision. As explained in final rule, and would not consider any In effect, this requires each post to the preamble accompanying the locomotive front end structures support a significant lateral load, and is issuance of this paragraph in the May constructed otherwise to be compliant. intended to reflect the uncertainty in the 12, 1999 final rule, paragraph (b)(2) FRA understands the BLET to be direction that a load is imparted during provides for the use of an equivalent concerned that, even given this an impact. The requirement is also end structure in place of the two background, an end structure built in intended to encourage the use of forward collision posts described in accordance with this corrected collision posts with closed (e.g., paragraph (b)—specifically, paragraphs paragraph would present safety rectangular) cross-sections, rather than (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). See 64 FR 25606. concerns. In large part for reasons with open (e.g., I-beam) cross-sections. However, the rule text made express discussed elsewhere in this final rule in Beams with open cross-sections tend to reference only to the collision posts in support of new paragraph (c) of this twist and bend across the weaker axis ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.’’ This section, FRA disagrees. Paragraph (c) of when overloaded, regardless of the provision was not intended to be this section is essentially the direction of load. Beams with closed limited to the collision posts described counterpart to—and an enhancement cross-sections are less likely to twist in paragraph (b)(1)(i) alone, but instead of—the requirements of this paragraph when overloaded, and are more likely to to the collision posts described in (b) for new cab cars and MU sustain a higher load as they deform, paragraph (b)(1) as a whole—both locomotives. New paragraph (c) of this absorbing more energy. paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). As a section applies to all cab cars and MU Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) does not have a result, FRA proposed to correct this locomotives ordered on or after May 10, counterpart in paragraph (b). This clear error in the rule text. 2010, or placed in service for the first paragraph requires that the collision In its comments on the NPRM, the time on or after March 8, 2012. Further, post be able to support a 60,000-pound BLET raised concern with this as noted earlier, as a result of FRA’s horizontal force applied anywhere along provision, first noting the purpose of locomotive crashworthiness final rule its length, from its attachment to floor- collision posts as explained by FRA in cited by the BLET, paragraph (b) does level structure up to its attachment to the final rule governing the not apply to conventional passenger roof-level structure. This requirement is crashworthiness of freight locomotives. locomotives that are manufactured on or intended to provide a minimum level of According to the BLET, because the after January 1, 2009, as they are subject collision post strength at any point height and positioning of the collision to the requirements of subpart D of part along its full height—not only at its posts are what creates the survivable 229. Paragraph (b) of this section connection to the underframe or at 30 space during an accident, FRA imposes therefore has limited applicability for inches above that point. The strict standards if a railroad wants to new passenger locomotives, essentially requirement must also be met for any deviate from the AAR S–580 standard in only those new cab cars and MU angle within 15 degrees of the the locomotive crashworthiness final locomotives ordered prior to May 10, longitudinal axis. rule. The BLET therefore found 2010, and placed in service for the first FRA notes that the forces specified in problematic that paragraph (b)(2) would time prior to March 8, 2012. paragraph (c)(2) that the collision posts provide for an equivalent end structure FRA notes that paragraph (b)(2) is are required to withstand are more that could withstand the sum of the intended to assure a minimum level of appropriately described as horizontal forces each collision post must overall end frame performance that forces, not merely longitudinal forces, as withstand, in lieu of the two collision prevents intrusions into the occupied they are applied at any angle within 15 posts. The BLET believed that the level volume, including the locomotive degrees of the longitudinal axis, the of protection provided by two collision engineer’s cab. End frames designed same as provided in Section 5.3.1.3.1 of posts is greater than the sum of the compliant with paragraph (b)(2) are APTA SS–C&S–034–99, Rev. 2, on forces because of added energy intended to act as a system to help keep which this paragraph is based. Although dissipation provided by the outer objects out of the cab. FRA wishes to the proposed rule text in the NPRM did sheeting of the locomotive allow for design innovation where not explicitly describe these forces as superstructure. Additionally, the BLET alternative structures can be utilized ‘‘horizontal forces,’’ FRA is doing so in believed that a differently-designed end that will provide equivalent levels of this final rule to be consistent with the structure that meets the equivalency protection. There are examples of APTA standard and to make the rule requirement may or may not— alternative, end frame arrangements that text more clear. depending upon its design and provide equivalent protection and are As discussed earlier, FRA received a construction—provide the same amount shaped so as to help deflect the object number of comments on paragraph of survivable space during an accident. as the end frame deforms, thereby (c)(3), originally proposed as paragraph Accordingly, the BLET urged FRA to preventing intrusion into the cab area. (c)(2) in the NPRM. FRA has modified revise paragraph (b)(2) in a way that FRA does not believe that use of this paragraph as a result, and this addresses both of these concerns. structures designed compliant with paragraph represents the consensus As FRA discussed in the NPRM, FRA paragraph (b)(2) places engineers at recommendation of RSAC. FRA had proposed to correct paragraph (b)(2) of greater risk than use of traditional proposed that each collision post also be this section so that use of an equivalent collision post structures compliant with able to absorb a prescribed amount of end structure would be allowed only in paragraph (b)(1). energy while deforming and without place of the two forward collision posts FRA has redesignated former separating from its supporting structure. described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), revised This proposed requirement was (b)(1)(ii) of this section—not paragraph it, and added a new paragraph (c) in its intended to provide a level of protection (b)(1)(i) alone. FRA sought to clear up a place. New paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and similar to the SOA end frame design, as

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1219

discussed earlier in the Technical passengers.13 In the CEM design being post requirements in terms of ‘‘force’’ Background section of the preamble, procured by Metrolink, an equivalent resisted, rather than ‘‘load’’ resisted. above. To comply with this end frame structure is placed outboard However, FRA makes clear that no requirement, the NPRM proposed that a of occupied space with crush elements change is intended to the formerly quasi-static test, such as the test between the very end of the nose and stated requirements; on the contrary, conducted by Bombardier on the M7 the equivalent end frame structure of FRA is using the same terminology design, be used to show compliance. the cab car. For a grade-crossing throughout this section so as to The NPRM also presented the option of collision above the underframe of the minimize any confusion that may result dynamic testing to demonstrate cab car, it is expected that perhaps an from using different terms when the compliance. order of magnitude or larger of collision same meaning is intended. As discussed earlier, FRA believes energy will be absorbed prior to any Paragraph (b) is intended to augment that dynamic performance requirements deformations into occupied space. the requirements of paragraph (a) for cab have been sufficiently validated and Nonetheless, FRA has decided that cars and MU locomotives ordered on or that dynamic testing should be included proposed paragraph (e) is not necessary after May 10, 2010, or placed in service as an alternative for demonstrating to retain in this final rule. Dynamic for the first time on or after March 8, compliance. However, FRA agrees with performance requirements are provided 2012. Paragraph (b)(2) therefore requires the Task Force in developing the final as alternative requirements in appendix that higher loads be resisted at the rule that instead of including in this F to this part, and are therefore available specified locations than its counterpart paragraph an option for the dynamic to apply to cab cars and MU in paragraph (a). testing of cab cars and MU locomotives, locomotives with CEM designs. The Paragraph (b)(3) includes quasi-static as was proposed in the NPRM, ability to apply dynamic performance performance requirements for alternative requirements based on requirements to the end frame structure demonstrating that the corner posts dynamic testing be included in provides the relief that was intended by absorb energy while deforming. In the appendix F to this part. Although FRA the addition of proposed paragraph (e), NPRM, proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) believes that the dynamic performance and this final rule will help to facilitate contained quasi-static test requirements requirements will be applied to shaped- the introduction of cab cars and MU for demonstrating energy absorption and nose designs or CEM designs, or designs locomotive with CEM designs. deformation. The proposed with both, these requirements may also Section 238.213 Corner Posts requirements were intended to provide be applied to conventional flat-nosed a level of protection similar to the SOA designs. Please see the ‘‘Discussion of This final rule enhances requirements end frame design, as described in the Specific Comments and Conclusions’’ for corner posts at the forward ends of Technical Background portion of the portion of the preamble, above, for cab cars and MU locomotives. The preamble, above. A quasi-static test, additional guidance on the requirements enhancements are based on the similar to the test conducted by of paragraph (c)(3). provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) Bombardier on the M7, would be As proposed in the NPRM, FRA has of Section 5.3.2.3.1, Cab end corner appropriate to demonstrate compliance. redesignated existing paragraph (c) as posts, and Section 5.3.2.3.3, Cab end- Additionally, proposed paragraph paragraph (d) of this section. No other non-operator side of cab-alternate (b)(2)(ii) provided for dynamic change is intended. requirements of APTA SS–C&S–034–99, qualification of the energy absorption There is no paragraph (e) in this final Rev. 2. FRA has modified the provisions and deformation requirements, as an rule. In the NPRM, FRA cited examples of this APTA standard for purposes of alternative to demonstrating compliance of shaped-nosed designs that place the their adoption as a Federal regulation. quasi-statically. FRA proposed that the engineer back from the extreme forward Together with the enhanced end structure would need to be capable end of the vehicle and offer the requirements for collision posts, this of withstanding a frontal impact with a potential for significantly increased action will increase the strength of the proxy object intended to approximate protection for the engineer in collisions. front end structure of cab cars and MU lading carried by a highway vehicle In this regard, FRA had proposed to add locomotives up to what the main under specific conditions. structure can support, and also require a paragraph (e) to provide relief from As discussed earlier, FRA believes explicit consideration of the behavior of utilization of a traditional end frame that dynamic performance requirements the front end structure when structure, provided that an equivalent have been sufficiently validated and overloaded. level of protection is afforded occupants that dynamic testing should be included As proposed in the NPRM, FRA has by the components of a CEM system. as an alternative for demonstrating revised this section in its entirety. FRA See 72 FR 42038. The intent was to compliance. However, FRA agrees with has revised this section by re- recognize that an equivalent level of the Task Force in developing the final designating former paragraph (b) as protection may be provided against rule that instead of including in this paragraph (a)(2), making conforming intrusion into occupied space, and that paragraph an option for the dynamic changes to paragraph (a), and adding end frame structures could be set back testing of cab cars and MU locomotives, new paragraphs (b) and (c). FRA has from the very end of the cab car or MU as was proposed in the NPRM, made conforming changes to paragraph locomotive as part of a CEM system. In alternative requirements based on (a) so that it is consistent with this the FRA CEM design tested in March dynamic testing be included in section in its entirety, as revised. In 2006, the end frame structure was appendix F to this part. Although FRA particular, FRA has re-stated the corner reinforced in order to support the loads believes that the dynamic performance introduced through the deformable anti- 13 Tyrell, D., Jacobsen, K., Martinez, E., ‘‘A Train- requirements will be applied to shaped- climber. Significantly more energy was to-Train Impact Test of Crash Energy Management nose designs or CEM designs, or designs absorbed in the deformation of the crush Passenger Rail Equipment: Structural Results,’’ with both, the requirements may also be zone elements than the combined American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper applied to conventional flat-nosed requirements outlined for both collision No. IMECE2006–13597, November 2006. This ‘‘ document is available on the Volpe Center’s Web designs. Please see the Discussion of and corner posts while preserving all site at: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2006/ Specific Comments and Conclusions’’ space for the locomotive engineer and rail_cw_2006_07.pdf. portion of the preamble, above, for

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

additional guidance on the requirements The requirements for the two corner preserving all space for the locomotive of paragraph (b)(3). posts on the side opposite from the engineer and passengers. Id. In the CEM FRA notes that collision posts have engineer’s control stand are described in design being procured by Metrolink, an more available space and a stronger paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3). The equivalent end frame structure is placed support structure than corner posts due structural requirements for the end outboard of occupied space with crush to their location in the middle of the corner post ahead of the stepwell are elements between the very end of the end frame. Hence, they can absorb more described in paragraph (c)(2). The nose and the equivalent end frame energy than corner posts, and the energy higher magnitude forces applied in the structure of the cab car. For a grade- absorption requirements specified for longitudinal direction will result in a crossing collision above the underframe collision posts in this final rule are corner post that is wider than it is deep. of the cab car, it is expected that greater than those specified for corner The structural load requirements for the perhaps an order of magnitude or larger posts, as a result. Nevertheless, these corner post behind the stepwell are of collision energy will be absorbed new requirements for corner posts more described in paragraph (c)(3). The prior to any deformations into occupied than double the amount of energy higher magnitude forces applied in the space. required for the posts to fail, when transverse direction will result in a Nonetheless, FRA has decided that compared to the 1990s end frame corner post that is deeper than it is proposed paragraph (d) is not necessary design. wide. to retain in this final rule. Dynamic Paragraph (c) prescribes the In paragraph (c)(4), FRA is also performance requirements are provided requirements for corner posts in cab cars requiring that the combination of the as alternative requirements in appendix and MU locomotives ordered on or after corner post ahead of the stepwell and F to this part, and are therefore available May 10, 2010, or placed in service for the corner post behind the stepwell be to apply to cab cars and MU the first time on or after March 8, 2012, capable of absorbing collision energy locomotives with CEM designs. The utilizing low-level passenger boarding while deforming. The requirements of ability to apply dynamic performance on the side of the equipment opposite this paragraph are virtually identical to requirements to the end frame structure from where the locomotive engineer is those for corner ports subject to provides the relief that was intended by seated. A graphical description of the paragraph (b)(3). In the NPRM, proposed the addition of proposed paragraph (d), forward end of a cab car or an MU paragraph (c)(3)(i) contained quasi static and this final rule will help to facilitate locomotive utilizing low-level passenger test requirements for demonstrating the introduction of cab cars and MU boarding on the non-operating side of energy absorption and deformation. locomotive with CEM designs. the cab end is provided in Figure 1 to Additionally, proposed paragraph Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of subpart C. In this arrangement, the non- (c)(3)(ii) provided for dynamic Civil Penalties operating side of the vehicle is protected qualification of the energy absorption by two corner posts (an end corner post and deformation requirements, as an This appendix contains a schedule of ahead of the stepwell and an internal alternative to demonstrating compliance civil penalties to be used in connection corner post behind the stepwell) that are quasi-statically. As noted earlier, FRA with this part. Because such penalty situated in front of the occupied space agreed with the Task Force in schedules are statements of agency and provide protection for the occupied developing this final rule that instead of policy, notice and comment are not space; the rule allows for the combined including in this paragraph an option required prior to their issuance. See 5 contribution of both sets of corner posts for the dynamic testing of cab cars and U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, FRA to provide an equivalent level of MU locomotives, as was proposed in the invited comment on the proposed protection to that required for the corner NPRM, alternative requirements based penalty schedule in light of the post design arrangement in other on dynamic testing be included in proposed changes to part 238. No configurations. appendix F to this part. This has been comment was received. As discussed earlier, FRA received a done. FRA does not find it necessary to number of comments on this provision There is no paragraph (d) in this final amend the penalty schedule as a result as proposed in the NPRM. In particular, rule. Similar to the proposed addition of of the changes made to part 238 by this the BLET raised concern that this § 238.211(e), discussed above, FRA had final rule. This final rule amends provision could lead to a diminution of proposed to add a paragraph (d) to existing sections of part 238 for which safety by designing the corner post provide relief from utilization of a guideline penalty amounts are already ahead of the stepwell to be weaker than traditional end frame structure, provided in the penalty schedule. As a the one behind the stepwell. Although provided that an equivalent level of result, the penalty schedule remains FRA has explained that safety is not protection is afforded occupants by the unchanged. diminished, the final rule contains an components of a CEM system. See 72 FR As noted in the NPRM, in December additional requirement that FRA review 42038. The intent was to recognize that 2006 FRA published proposed and approve plans for manufacturing an equivalent level of protection may be statements of agency policy that would cab cars and MU locomotives with this provided against intrusion into amend the schedules of civil penalties corner post design arrangement. Each occupied space, and that end frame issued as appendixes to FRA’s safety plan must detail how the corner post structures could be set back from the regulations, including part 238. See 71 requirements will be met, including very end of the cab car or MU FR 70589; Dec. 5, 2006. The proposed what the acceptance criteria will be to locomotive as part of a CEM system. In revisions are intended to reflect more evaluate compliance. FRA believes that the FRA CEM design tested in March accurately the safety risks associated this close oversight will help to alleviate 2006, the end frame structure was with violations of the rail safety laws concerns that the manufactured designs reinforced in order to support the loads and regulations, as well as to make sure are in any way less safe for introduced through the deformable anti- that the civil penalty amounts are crewmembers and passengers to occupy. climber. Significantly more energy was consistent across all safety regulations. Specifically, paragraph (c) requires absorbed in the deformation of the Although the schedules are statements that the corner post load requirements deformable anti-climber than the of agency policy, and FRA has authority of paragraph (b) be met for the corner combined requirements outlined for to issue the revisions without having to post on the operating side of the cab. both collision and corner posts while follow the notice and comment

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1221

procedures of the Administrative to minimize safety concerns, as please refer to Docket No. FRA–2006– Procedure Act, FRA provided members discussed earlier in the preamble to this 25268. and representatives of the general public final rule. (Again, by noting that caution Through this final rule, FRA is an opportunity to comment on the must be exercised in planning and enhancing its minimum requirements proposed revisions before amending executing the tests, FRA does not intend for the performance of collision posts them. FRA has evaluated all of the in any way to oust the jurisdiction of the and corner posts on cab cars and MU comments received in preparing final Occupational Safety and Health locomotives. These requirements apply statements of agency policy, and the Administration of the U.S. Department only to newly constructed passenger schedule of civil penalties to part 238 of Labor with regard to the safety of equipment used as cab cars or MU may be revised as a result of that employees performing the tests.) locomotives. The requirements are separate proceeding, independent of FRA notes that the approach in this based on current industry standards for this rulemaking. appendix is similar to that followed in front end frame structures, which, to Appendix F to Part 238—Alternative the locomotive crashworthiness final FRA’s knowledge, every cab car or MU Dynamic Performance Requirements for rule, in which the front end structure locomotive currently in production for Front End Structures of Cab Cars and requirements are principally stated in operation in the United States already MU Locomotives the form of performance criteria for meets. As such, the requirements are not expected to affect any units in FRA is adding appendix F to part 238 given collision scenarios. See appendix E to part 229; 71 FR 36915. In that final production or planned for production to provide alternatives to the for operation in the United States. This requirements of §§ 238.211 and 238.213. rule, FRA adopted performance criteria, rule essentially codifies these industry Cab cars and MU locomotives are not rather than more prescriptive design standards and will likely not cause required to comply with both the standards, to allow for greater flexibility railroads to incur costs beyond those requirements of those sections and the in the design of locomotives and better they already incur voluntarily. In this requirements of this appendix. Either encourage innovation in locomotive regard, it is also likely that this rule will set of requirements is adequate for the designs. See 71 FR 36895–36898. Of lead to no additional safety benefits, purpose, depending on the technical course, the requirements in §§ 238.211 because, as previously mentioned, challenge(s) presented. and 238.213 are forms of performance As specified in § 238.209(b), the criteria; the distinction is that the industry already makes cab cars and MU forward end of a cab car or an MU performance criteria relate to quasi- locomotives that meet these locomotive may comply with the static loading conditions—instead of requirements and is assumed to do so in requirements of this appendix in lieu of dynamic loading conditions. the absence of this final rule. the requirements of either § 238.211 or Please see the ‘‘Discussion of Specific The rule’s requirements may affect § 238.213, or both. The requirements of Comments and Conclusions’’ section in cab cars and MU locomotives from other this appendix are intended to be the preamble, above, for additional potential manufacturers of equipment equivalent to the requirements of those guidance on the requirements of this for operation in the United States if the sections and allow for the application of appendix and of paragraph (b)(3) in equipment is of a design that does not dynamic performance criteria to cab particular for cab cars and MU meet current industry standards. cars and MU locomotives as an locomotives utilizing low-level However unlikely this scenario, FRA’s alternative to the requirements of those passenger boarding on the non- analysis considers the hypothetical sections. The alternative dynamic operating side of the cab. costs and benefits of requiring performance requirements are equipment subject to this final rule from applicable to all cab cars and MU VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices a non-compliant design to be made locomotives and may, in particular, be A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT compliant with the rule’s requirements. helpful for evaluating the compliance of Regulatory Policies and Procedures Since there are alternative methods to cab cars and MU locomotives with meet the requirements of this final rule, shaped-noses or CEM designs, or both. This final rule has been evaluated in the level of cost burden would depend In any case, the end structure must be accordance with existing policies and on the method used. For purposes of designed to protect the occupied procedures, and it has been determined analysis, FRA selected a method that volume for its full height, from the not to be significant under either would serve as a reasonable proxy. The underframe to the anti-telescoping plate Executive Order 12866 or DOT policies analysis assumes that costs would stem (if used) or roof rails. and procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, from slightly higher costs of producing FRA notes that, in developing the 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the equipment and slightly higher NPRM, concern was raised as to the the docket a regulatory evaluation energy costs resulting from operating safety of conducting full-scale, dynamic addressing the economic impact of this the equipment in proportion to its testing; the technical tradeoffs between final rule. Document inspection and assumed additional weight. (FRA notes quasi-static test requirements and copying facilities are available at the that although the analysis assumes that dynamic test requirements were Docket Management Facility, U.S. the additional weight would be one discussed in the Technical Background Department of Transportation, West quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the section of the preamble to the NPRM. Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, weight of the equipment, FRA is not FRA explained that there are safety 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., making a finding that a cab car or MU concerns associated with both quasi- Washington, DC 20590. Docket material locomotive would necessarily be static and dynamic testing, and in a is also available for inspection on the heavier as a result of manufacturing it quasi-static test particular care must be Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. in compliance with this final rule.) At taken due to the potential for the Photocopies may also be obtained by the same time, the analysis assumes that sudden release of stored energy should submitting a written request to the FRA benefits would arise from increased there be material failure. Proper Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, safety for passengers and planning and execution of each test are Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad crewmembers—safety that is provided required. Nonetheless, FRA has revised Administration, 1200 New Jersey by a more crashworthy end frame the dynamic performance requirements Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; structure that is assumed to result both

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

in some fatalities avoided and in surfaces. The APTA standards The U.S. Small Business Administration injuries avoided. developed in 1999, and revised in 2003 (SBA) stipulates ‘‘size standards’’ for In particular, assuming the number of and 2006, provide that new cab cars and small entities. It provides that the new cab cars and MU locomotives that MU locomotives have front end largest a for-profit railroad business firm would not be built to these requirements structures with corner and collision may be (and still classify as a ‘‘small and that therefore would be affected by posts able to sustain minimum entity’’) is 1,500 employees for ‘‘Line- this rule increases by 3 percent annually prescribed loads and absorb collision Haul Operating’’ railroads, and 500 for the 20 years following energy. This rule codifies these industry employees for ‘‘Short-Line Operating’’ implementation of this rule, FRA’s standards, which are based on quasi- railroads. Additionally, section 601(5) analysis finds that, at a 7 percent static performance criteria. This rule defines as ‘‘small entities’’ governments discount rate, adopting this rule would also includes dynamic performance of cities, counties, towns, townships, cost $4,056,265 in 2007 dollars over the criteria that can be applied to any type villages, school districts, or special 20-year period. The analysis further of front end structure design (shaped- districts with populations less than assumes that it would not be nose, CEM, flat-nosed, or otherwise) in 50,000. unreasonable to attain total safety lieu of the quasi-static performance SBA size standards may be altered by benefits for the 20-year period of criteria, which should reduce the Federal agencies in consultation with $16,334,389 in 2007 dollars at a 7 uncertainty involved in demonstrating SBA, and in conjunction with public percent discount rate, meaning that net compliance. Inclusion of these comment. Pursuant to the authority benefits at a 7 percent discount rate alternative criteria should also enable provided to it by SBA, FRA has would be $12,278,124. Analyzed at an car builders to more easily incorporate published a final policy, which formally incremental level, this rule would then alternative, front end structure designs, establishes small entities as railroads result in an average cost of $1,304 per which may lead to safer, less costly, or that meet the line haulage revenue unit in 2007 dollars and would yield otherwise improved cab cars and MU requirements of a Class III railroad. average benefits of $5,252 per unit in locomotives. Currently, the revenue requirements are 2007 dollars. Average net benefits for FRA notes that the crashworthiness $20 million or less in annual operating each unit constructed in compliance requirements proposed in the NPRM revenue, adjusted annually for inflation. with this rule would then be $3,948 in and contained in this final rule were The $20 million limit (adjusted 2007 dollars. At a 3 percent discount developed in consultation with a annually for inflation) is based on the rate, adopting this rule would then cost working group that includes Amtrak, Surface Transportation Board’s $7,367,882 in 2007 dollars and would individual commuter railroads, threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, yield total benefits of $22,081,319 in individual passenger car manufacturers, which is adjusted by applying the 2007 dollars. Net benefits at a 3 percent and APTA, which represents commuter railroad revenue deflator adjustment. discount rate would then be railroads and passenger car $14,713,437 in 2007 dollars. Calculated manufacturers in rulemaking matters. The principal entities subject to this at the per unit basis at a 3 percent As discussed in earlier sections of this rule by application of § 238.3(a)(1) are discount rate, adopting this rule would preamble, the quasi-static performance governmental jurisdictions or transit then cost $2,369 on average per unit in criteria in the final rule are basically authorities that provide commuter rail 2007 dollars and would result in unchanged from the NPRM, while FRA service—none of which is small for benefits of $7,100 on average per unit in has restated the alternative, dynamic purposes of the SBA (i.e., no entity 2007 dollars. Thus, average net benefits performance criteria principally to make serves a locality with a population less per unit at a 3 percent discount rate the criteria easier to apply. than 50,000). These entities also receive would then be $4,731 in 2007 dollars. FRA has considered all of the Federal transportation funds. Intercity comments submitted to the rulemaking rail service providers Amtrak and the B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and docket and appreciates the information Alaska Railroad Corporation are also Executive Order 13272 provided by the many parties. No subject to this rule under § 238.3(a)(1), To ensure that the potential impact of comments were received specifically but they are not small entities and this rule on small entities was properly regarding FRA’s initial analysis of the likewise receive Federal transportation considered, FRA developed this rule in impact of this rule on small entities. As funds. While other railroads are subject accordance with Executive Order 13272 discussed below, FRA is certifying that to this final rule by the application of (‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities this final rule will result in ‘‘no § 238.3, FRA is not aware of any railroad in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s significant economic impact on a subject to this rule that is a small entity policies and procedures to promote substantial number of small entities.’’ that will be impacted by this rule. For compliance with the Regulatory The universe of the entities example, railroads that provide short- Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). considered by FRA comprises only haul rail passenger train service in a The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires those small entities that can reasonably metropolitan or suburban area as an agency to review regulations to be expected to be directly affected by specified in § 238.3(a)(2) are subject to assess their impact on small entities. An the provisions of this rule. ‘‘Small this rule, but FRA is not aware that any agency must conduct a regulatory entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(3) as railroad in existence that would fall in flexibility analysis unless it determines having the same meaning as ‘‘small this category (and is not otherwise a and certifies that a rule is not expected business concern’’ under section 3 of the commuter railroad) operates with cab to have a significant impact on a Small Business Act. This includes any cars or MU locomotives, or intends to substantial number of small entities. small business concern that is acquire any new cab cars or MU As discussed in earlier sections of this independently owned and operated, and locomotives that would be subject to the preamble, the principal goals of is not dominant in its field of operation. requirements of this final rule, or both. crashworthiness rules promulgated by Section 601(4) likewise includes within Tourist, scenic, excursion, and historic FRA are twofold: first, preserve a safe the definition of ‘‘small entities’’ not-for- passenger railroad operations are space for occupants, and, next, profit enterprises that are independently exempt from part 238; therefore, these minimize the forces that occupants are owned and operated, and are not smaller operations would not incur any subjected to when impacting interior dominant in their field of operations. costs from this final rule.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1223

Having made these determinations, and Budget (OMB) for review and Passenger Equipment Safety Standards FRA certifies that this final rule will not approval in accordance with the final rule, 64 FR 25540. Please note that have a significant economic impact on Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 the table does not include those a substantial number of small entities U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The section that information collection requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or contains a new information collection added by the February 1, 2008 Executive Order 13272. requirement (49 CFR 238.213) and the Passenger Train Emergency Systems estimated time to fulfill that C. Paperwork Reduction Act final rule, 73 FR 6370, as they are requirement are both summarized in the covered under a separate approval, The information collection following table. The table summarizes OMB No. 2130–0576, which is current requirements in this final rule have been the information collection requirements until March 31, 2011. submitted to the Office of Management arising out of the May 12, 1999

Total annual Average time Total annual CFR section Respondent universe responses per response burden hours

216.14—Special Notice for Repairs ...... 27 railroads ...... 9 forms ...... 5 minutes ...... 1 —Passenger Equipment. 229.47—Emergency Brake Valve. —Marking Brake Pipe Valve as Such 27 railroads ...... 30 markings ...... 1 minute ...... 1 —MU, Cab Car Locomotives—Marking 27 railroads ...... 5 markings ...... 1 minute ...... 08 Emergency Brake Valve as Such. 238.7—Waivers ...... 27 railroads ...... 5 waivers ...... 2 hours ...... 10 238.15—Movement of Passenger Equip- ment with Power Brake Defects. —Defects Found at Inspection Point ... 27 railroads ...... 1,000 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 50 —Defects Developed en Route ...... 27 railroads ...... 288 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 14 —Conditional requirement—Notifica- 27 railroads ...... 144 notifications ...... 3 minutes ...... 7 tion. 238.17—Movement of Passenger Equip- ment with Other Than Power Brake De- fects. —Defects Found at Inspection Point ... 27 railroads ...... 200 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 10 —Defects Developed en Route ...... 27 railroads ...... 76 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 4 —Special Requisites—Movement of 27 railroads ...... 38 notifications ...... 30 seconds ...... 32 Passenger Equipment with Safety Appliance Defect—Crewmember Notifications. 238.21—Petitions for Special Approval of 27 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 16 hours ...... 16 Alternative Standards. —Petitions for Special Approval of Al- 27 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 120 hours ...... 120 ternative Compliance. —Petitions for Special Approval of 27 railroads ...... 10 petitions ...... 40 hours ...... 400 Pre-Revenue Service Acceptance Testing Plan. —Comments on petitions ...... public/railroad industry .. 4 comments ...... 1 hour ...... 4 238.103—Fire Safety. —Procuring New Pass. Equipment— 2 new railroads ...... 2 analyses ...... 150 hours ...... 300 Fire Safety Analysis. —Existing Equipment—Final Fire 27 railroads ...... 1 analysis ...... 40 hours ...... 40 Safety Analysis. —Transferring/Changing Existing 27 railroads ...... 3 analyses ...... 20 hours ...... 60 Equipment—Revised Fire Safety Analysis. 238.107—Inspection, Testing, and Mainte- 27 railroads ...... 12 reviews ...... 60 hours ...... 720 nance Plans—Review by Railroads. 238.109—Employee/Contractor Training. —Training Employees and Contrac- 7,500 employees/con- 2,500 employees/contractors/100 1.33 hours ...... 3,458 tors—Mech. Inspection. tractors. trainers. —Recordkeeping—Employee/Con- 27 railroads ...... 2,500 records ...... 3 minutes ...... 125 tractor Current Qualifications. 238.111—Pre-Revenue Service Accept- ance Testing Plan. —Passenger Equipment That Has 9 equipment manufac- 2 plans ...... 16 hours ...... 32 Previously Been Used in Revenue turers. Service in the U.S. —Passenger Equipment That Has Not 9 equipment manufac- 2 plans ...... 192 hours ...... 384 Been Previously Used in Revenue turers. Service in the U.S. —Subsequent Equipment Orders ...... 9 equipment manufac- 2 plans ...... 60 hours ...... 120 turers. 238.213—Corner Posts—Plans (New Re- 27 railroads ...... 10 plans ...... 40 hours ...... 400 quirement). 238.229—Safety Appliances. —Welded Safety Appliances Consid- 27 railroads ...... 27 lists ...... 1 hour ...... 27 ered Defective: Lists. —Lists Identifying Equipment with 27 railroads ...... 27 lists ...... 1 hour ...... 27 Welded Safety Appliances. —Defective Welded Safety Appli- 27 railroads ...... 4 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 20 ances—Tags. —Notification to Crewmembers about 27 railroads ...... 2 notifications ...... 1 minute ...... 0333 Non-Compliant Equipment. —Inspection Plans ...... 27 railroads ...... 27 plans ...... 16 hours ...... 432 —Inspection Personnel—Training ...... 27 railroads ...... 54 employees ...... 4 hours ...... 216

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Total annual Average time Total annual CFR section Respondent universe responses per response burden hours

—Remedial action: Defect/Crack in 27 railroads ...... 1 record ...... 2.25 hours ...... 2 Weld—Record. —Petitions for Special Approval of Al- 27 railroads ...... 15 petitions ...... 4 hours ...... 60 ternative Compliance—Impractical Equipment Design. —Records of Inspection/Repair of 27 railroads ...... 3,054 records ...... 12 minutes ...... 611 Welded Safety Appliance Brackets/ Supports. 238.230—Safety Appliances—New Equip- ment. —Inspection Record of Welded Equip- 27 railroads ...... 100 records ...... 6 minutes ...... 10 ment by Qualified Employee. —Welded Safety Appliances: Docu- 27 railroads ...... 15 documents ...... 4 hours ...... 60 mentation for Equipment Impractically Designed to Mechani- cally Fasten Safety Appliance Sup- port. 238.231—Brake System. —Inspection and Repair of Hand/Park- 27 railroads ...... 2,500 forms ...... 21 minutes ...... 875 ing Brake: Records. —Procedures Verifying Hold of Hand/ 27 railroads ...... 27 procedures ...... 2 hours ...... 54 Parking Brake. 238.237—Automated Monitoring. —Documentation for Alerter/Deadman 27 railroads ...... 3 documents ...... 2 hours ...... 6 Control Timing. —Defective Alerter/Deadman Control: 27 railroads ...... 25 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 1 Tagging. 238.303—Exterior Calendar Day Mechan- ical Inspection of Passenger Equipment. —Notice of Previous Inspection for 27 railroads ...... 25 notices ...... 1 minute ...... 1 Added Equipment. —Dynamic Brakes Not in Operating 27 railroads ...... 50 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 3 Mode: Tag. —Conventional Locomotives Equipped 27 railroads ...... 50 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 3 with Inoperative Dynamic Brakes: Tagging. —MU Passenger Equipment Found 27 railroads ...... 4 documents ...... 2 hours ...... 8 with Inoperative/Ineffective Air Com- pressor at Exterior Calendar Day In- spection: Documents. —Written Notice to Train Crew about 27 railroads ...... 100 notices ...... 3 minutes ...... 5 Inoperative/Ineffective Air Compres- sors. —Records of Inoperative Air Compres- 27 railroads ...... 100 records ...... 2 minutes ...... 3 sors. —Record of Exterior Calendar Day 27 railroads ...... 2,376,920 records ...... 10 minutes + 1 minute ...... 435,769 Mechanical Inspection. 238.305—Interior Calendar Day Mechan- ical Inspection of Passenger Cars. —Tagging of Defective End/Side 27 railroads ...... 540 tags ...... 1 minute ...... 9 Doors. —Records of Interior Calendar Day In- 27 railroads ...... 1,968,980 records ...... 5 minutes + 1 minute ...... 196,898 spection. 238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars and Unpowered Vehi- cles. —Alternative Inspection Intervals: Noti- 27 railroads ...... 2 notifications ...... 5 hours ...... 10 fications. —Notice of Seats/Seat Attachments 27 railroads ...... 200 notices ...... 2 minutes ...... 7 Broken or Loose. —Records of Each Periodic Mechan- 27 railroads ...... 19,284 records ...... 200 hours/2 minutes ...... 3,857,443 ical Inspection. —Detailed Documentation of Reliability 27 railroads ...... 5 documents ...... 100 hours ...... 500 Assessments as Basis for Alter- native Inspection Interval. 238.311—Single Car Test. —Tagging to Indicate Need for Single 27 railroads ...... 50 tags ...... 3 minutes ...... 3 Car Test. 238.313—Class I Brake Test. —Record for Additional Inspection for 27 railroads ...... 15,600 records ...... 30 minutes ...... 7,800 Passenger Equipment That Does Not Comply with § 238.231(b)(1). 238.315—Class IA Brake Test. —Notice to Train Crew That Test Has 27 railroads ...... 18,250 verbal notices ...... 5 seconds ...... 25 Been Performed. —Communicating Signal Tested and 27 railroads ...... 365,000 tests ...... 15 seconds ...... 1,521 Operating. 238.317—Class II Brake Test. —Communicating Signal Tested and 27 railroads ...... 365,000 tests ...... 15 seconds ...... 1,521 Operating. 238.321—Out-of-Service Credit. —Passenger Car: Out-of-Use Notation 27 railroads ...... 1,250 notes ...... 2 minutes ...... 42 238.445—Automated Monitoring.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1225

Total annual Average time Total annual CFR section Respondent universe responses per response burden hours

—Performance Monitoring: Alerters/ 1 railroad ...... 10,000 alerts ...... 10 seconds ...... 28 Alarms. —Monitoring System: Self-Test Fea- 1 railroad ...... 21,900 notifications ...... 20 seconds ...... 122 ture: Notifications. 238.503—Inspection, Testing, and Mainte- 1 railroad ...... 1 plan ...... 1,200 hours ...... 1,200 nance Requirements—Plans. 238.505—Program Approval Procedures. —Submission of Program/Plans and rail industry ...... 3 comments ...... 3 hours ...... 9 Comments on Programs.

All estimates include the time for implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have qualifies under the ‘‘essentially local reviewing instructions, searching federalism implications’’ are defined in safety or security hazard’’ exception to existing data sources, gathering or the Executive Order to include Section 20106. The intent of Section maintaining the needed data, and regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 20106 is to promote national uniformity reviewing the information. For effects on the States, on the relationship in railroad safety and security information or a copy of the paperwork between the national government and standards. 49 U.S.C. 20106(a)(1). This package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. the States, or on the distribution of intent was expressed even more Robert Brogan, Office of Safety power and responsibilities among the specifically in 49 U.S.C. 20133, which Information Clearance Officer, at 202– various levels of government.’’ Under mandated that the Secretary of 493–6292 or via e-mail at Executive Order 13132, the agency may Transportation prescribe ‘‘regulations [email protected]; or Ms. Kimberly not issue a regulation with federalism establishing minimum standards for the Toone, Office of Administration implications that imposes substantial safety of cars used by railroad carriers Information Clearance Officer, at 202– direct compliance costs and that is not to transport passengers’’ and consider 493–6132 or via e-mail at required by statute, unless the Federal such matters as ‘‘the crashworthiness of [email protected]. government provides the funds the cars’’ before prescribing the Organizations and individuals necessary to pay the direct compliance regulations. This final rule is intended desiring to submit comments on the costs incurred by State and local to add to and enhance these regulations, collection of information requirements governments, the agency consults with originally issued on May 12, 1999, should direct them to the Office of State and local governments, or the pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20133. Thus, Management and Budget, 725 17th St., agency consults with State and local subject to a limited exception for NW., Washington, DC 20590, Attn: FRA government officials early in the process essentially local safety or security OMB Desk Officer, or via e-mail at of developing the regulation. Where a hazards, this final rule establishes a _ oira [email protected]. OMB is regulation has federalism implications uniform Federal safety standard that required to make a decision concerning and preempts State law, the agency must be met, and State requirements the collection of information seeks to consult with State and local covering the same subject matter are requirements contained in this final rule officials in the process of developing the displaced, whether those State between 30 and 60 days after regulation. requirements are in the form of a State publication of this final rule in the FRA has determined that this final law, including common law, regulation, Federal Register. Therefore, a comment rule will not have substantial direct or order. In particular, FRA believes that to OMB is best assured of having its full effects on the States, on the relationship it has preempted any State law, effect if OMB receives it within 30 days between the national government and regulation, or order, including State of publication. common law standards of care, FRA is not authorized to impose a the States, nor on the distribution of concerning the operation of a cab car or penalty on persons for violating power and responsibilities among the MU locomotive as the leading unit of a information collection requirements various levels of government. In passenger train. which do not display a current OMB addition, FRA has determined that this control number, if required. FRA final rule will not impose substantial As discussed earlier, FRA notes that intends to obtain current OMB control direct compliance costs on State and RSAC, which endorsed and numbers for any new information local governments. Therefore, the recommended adoption of the collection requirements resulting from consultation and funding requirements requirements of this final rule, has as this rulemaking action prior to the of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. permanent members two organizations effective date of the final rule. The OMB However, this final rule has representing State and local interests: control number, when assigned, will be preemptive effect. As discussed earlier, AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these announced by separate notice in the FRA is clarifying the preemptive effect State organizations concurred with the Federal Register. of this final rule and the underlying RSAC recommendation endorsing the regulations it is proposing to amend. requirements of this final rule. RSAC D. Federalism Implications Section 20106 provides that States may regularly provides recommendations to This final rule has been analyzed in not adopt or continue in effect any law, the Administrator of FRA for solutions accordance with the principles and regulation, or order related to railroad to regulatory issues that reflect criteria contained in Executive Order safety or security that covers the subject significant input from its State 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, Aug. matter of a regulation prescribed or members. As discussed earlier, FRA has 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 issued by the Secretary of received federalism concerns in requires FRA to develop an accountable Transportation (with respect to railroad comments on the NPRM from members process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and safety matters) or the Secretary of of RSAC, from the CPUC, and from timely input by State and local officials Homeland Security (with respect to other commenters. FRA again makes in the development of regulatory railroad security matters), except when clear that the RSAC recommendation to policies that have federalism the State law, regulation, or order the Administrator on the NPRM neither

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

contained a preemption provision in the five county transportation planning F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of rule text, nor did it include the agencies in southern California. These 1995 interpretive discussion in the preamble local transportation agencies are surely Pursuant to Section 201 of the to the NPRM. Nor did RSAC, which local interests with the meaning of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 includes AASHTO and ASRSM, address Executive Order 13132 and are the (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each the comments raised on preemption in appropriate ones to consult because Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise developing this final rule. Nonetheless, they are the only local interests likely to prohibited by law, assess the effects of FRA believes that this final rule is in have the relevant technical knowledge. Federal regulatory actions on State, accordance with the principles and Moreover, FRA did not receive any local, and Tribal governments, and the criteria contained in Executive Order adverse comment from any local official private sector (other than to the extent 13132, which says ‘‘where national on FRA’s views as to the preemptive that such regulations incorporate standards are required by Federal effect of the rulemaking. (The CPUC of requirements specifically set forth in statutes, consult with appropriate State course commented adversely on behalf law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. and local officials in developing those of the State of California.) It is also 1532) further requires that ‘‘before standards.’’ The standards are embodied worth noting in this context that local promulgating any general notice of in the rule text, and the rule text was the governments have no role at all under proposed rulemaking that is likely to subject of the consultations that focused the Federal railroad safety laws in result in the promulgation of any rule principally on what the substantive regulating railroad safety—that which is that includes any Federal mandate that requirements of the rule should be. not done by the Federal Government is may result in expenditure by State, FRA notes that the BLET commented reserved to the States. FRA believes that that FRA, in developing the NPRM, did local, and Tribal governments, in the it has satisfied the consultation aggregate, or by the private sector, of not consult with any truly local requirements in the Executive Order. interests, asserting that AASHTO and $100,000,000 or more (adjusted In sum, FRA has analyzed this final annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and ASRSM are comprised of State—not rule in accordance with the principles local—executive branch representatives. before promulgating any final rule for and criteria contained in Executive Further, the BLET commented that there which a general notice of proposed Order 13132. As explained above, FRA was no evidence that FRA had rulemaking was published, the agency has determined that this final rule has consulted with any member of a State or shall prepare a written statement’’ no federalism implications, other than local legislative or judicial branch, or a detailing the effect on State, local, and the preemption of State laws covering State’s attorney general. The BLET Tribal governments and the private the subject matter of this final rule, contended that FRA’s preamble sector. The final rule will not result in which occurs by operation of law under comments created a significant Federal the expenditure, in the aggregate, of Section 20106 whenever FRA issues a question and required consultation $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted rule or order, and under the LBIA (49 under Executive Order 13132 that had annually for inflation) in any one year, not been performed. U.S.C. 20701–20703) by its terms. and thus preparation of such a FRA believes that local interests are Accordingly, FRA has determined that statement is not required. preparation of a federalism summary sufficiently represented through RSAC G. Energy Impact for purposes of the consultations impact statement for this final rule is required to be undertaken by FRA in not required. Executive Order 13211 requires developing proposed regulations under E. Environmental Impact Federal agencies to prepare a Statement Executive Order 13132. For instance, of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant FRA understands that while all State FRA has evaluated this final rule in energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May departments of transportation are active accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a members of AASHTO, several sub-State Considering Environmental Impacts’’ ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as transportation agencies are associate (FRA’s Procedures) (see 64 FR 28545 any action by an agency (normally members, including local transportation (May 26, 1999)) as required by the published in the Federal Register) that officials. Further, even though ASRSM National Environmental Policy Act (see promulgates or is expected to lead to the is comprised of State officials, FRA has 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other promulgation of a final rule or not relied on the fact that another RSAC environmental statutes, Executive regulation, including notices of inquiry, member, APTA, itself has as members Orders, and related regulatory advance notices of proposed local government agencies and requirements. FRA has determined that rulemaking, and notices of proposed metropolitan planning organizations. this final rule is not a major FRA action rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant APTA took no issue with FRA’s views (requiring the preparation of an regulatory action under Executive Order on preemption. Instead, APTA environmental impact statement or 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is ‘‘applaud[ed] FRA’s strong leadership on environmental assessment) because it is likely to have a significant adverse effect the issues surrounding Federal categorically excluded from detailed on the supply, distribution, or use of preemption of State and local environmental review pursuant to energy; or (2) that is designated by the regulation,’’ stating in particular that section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. Administrator of the Office of ‘‘consistent standards are absolutely See 64 FR 28547 (May 26, 1999). In Information and Regulatory Affairs as a vital to the safe, efficient operation of accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of significant energy action. the nation’s rail system.’’ Further, FRA FRA’s Procedures, the agency has FRA stated in the NPRM that it had believes it fair to consider commuter further concluded that no extraordinary evaluated this rulemaking in accordance railroads on RSAC to represent local circumstances exist with respect to this with Executive Order 13211 and had interests in part as they are generally the regulation that might trigger the need for determined that the rulemaking is not products of local governments for a more detailed environmental review. likely to have a significant adverse effect providing rail service for the benefit of As a result, FRA finds that this final rule on the supply, distribution, or use of their local metropolitan areas. For is not a major Federal action energy. In comments on the NPRM, example, as noted earlier, Metrolink is significantly affecting the quality of the however, some commenters disagreed a joint powers authority comprised of human environment. with FRA’s determination. In sum, the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1227

commenters claimed that this performance desired, rather than in The Rule rulemaking would increase the weight more narrow terms restricted to a For the reasons discussed in the of passenger rail equipment and would particular design, so as not to limit preamble, FRA amends part 238 of adversely affect energy usage because different, compliant designs by any chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of heavier railcars require more energy to manufacturer—foreign or domestic. Federal Regulations, as follows: operate. In commenting on the NPRM, the FRA continues to find that this CPUC concurred with FRA that the PART 238—[AMENDED] regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant safety of passenger cars is paramount energy action’’ within the meaning of and that legitimate safety objectives are 1. The authority citation for part 238 Executive Order 13211. As discussed not considered unnecessary obstacles to continues to read as follows: above, the requirements in this final the foreign commerce of the United Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, rule are based on current industry States. In its comments, however, 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, standards for front end frame structures, Caltrain disagreed with FRA’s assertions 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; which, to FRA’s knowledge, every cab and asked that FRA reconsider its and 49 CFR 1.49. car and MU locomotive currently in proposal. Caltrain recommended that production for operation in the United FRA allow alternative, proven designs Subpart A—General States already meets. As such, the to be considered when presented as 2. Revise § 238.13 to read as follows: standards are not expected to affect any components of an entire system, rather units in production or planned for than requiring the alternative designs to § 238.13 Preemptive effect. production for operation in the United meet the requirements of the regulation (a) Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of States. This rule essentially codifies as written for any vehicle on any these regulations preempts any State these industry standards and will likely railroad. law, regulation, or order covering the not cause railroads to incur costs FRA maintains that its actions in this same subject matter, except an beyond those that they already incur rulemaking are consistent with the additional or more stringent law, voluntarily. Trade Agreements Act. This final rule is regulation, or order that is necessary to Moreover, even when FRA has a rule of general applicability, intended eliminate or reduce an essentially local assumed that a cab car or MU safety or security hazard; is not locomotive would be heavier as a result to apply to Tier I passenger vehicles in general use. The alternative incompatible with a law, regulation, or of manufacturing it to comply with the order of the United States Government; requirements of this final rule, operation performance requirements in appendix F provide flexibility in vehicle design and does not unreasonably burden of the slightly heavier cab car or MU interstate commerce. locomotive is assumed to result in only for use on any railroad. FRA did not intend to specify requirements for (b) This part establishes Federal a slightly higher energy cost. This standards of care for railroad passenger assumed energy cost is minimal and in vehicles operating under particular conditions on a particular railroad. equipment. This part does not preempt proportion to the assumed additional an action under State law seeking weight of the equipment—increases of Nonetheless, existing FRA regulations provide separate processes for damages for personal injury, death, or one quarter of one percent (0.25%) in property damage alleging that a party both the energy cost and equipment considering the safety of vehicles in has failed to comply with the Federal weight. Nonetheless, FRA has not made such circumstances, and they are also standard of care established by this part, a finding that a cab car or MU neutral with respect to the country of including a plan or program required by locomotive would necessarily be origin of the vehicles. this part. Provisions of a plan or heavier as a result of manufacturing it For related discussion on the program that exceed the requirements of in compliance with this final rule. international effects of part 238, please see the preamble to the May 12, 1999 this part are not included in the Federal H. Trade Impact Passenger Equipment Safety Standards standard of care. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 final rule on the topic of ‘‘United States (c) Under 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703 (Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) international treaty obligations.’’ See 64 (formerly the Locomotive (Boiler) prohibits Federal agencies from FR 25545. Inspection Act), the field of locomotive engaging in any standards or related safety is preempted, extending to the I. Privacy Act activities that create unnecessary design, the construction, and the obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Anyone is able to search the material of every part of the locomotive United States. Legitimate domestic electronic form of all comments or and tender and all appurtenances objectives, such as safety, are not petitions for reconsideration received thereof. To the extent that the considered unnecessary obstacles. The into any of FRA’s dockets by the name regulations in this part establish statute also requires consideration of of the individual submitting the requirements affecting locomotive international standards and, where comment or petition for reconsideration safety, the scope of preemption is appropriate, that they be the basis for (or signing the comment or petition for provided by 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703. U.S. standards. reconsideration, if submitted on behalf Subpart C—Specific Requirements for In issuing the NPRM, FRA assessed of an association, business, labor union, Tier I Passenger Equipment the potential effect of this rulemaking etc.). You may review DOT’s complete on foreign commerce and believed that Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 3. Revise § 238.205 to read as follows: the proposed requirements would be Register published on April 11, 2000 consistent with the Trade Agreements (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit § 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. Act. FRA noted that the proposed http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. (a) Except as provided in paragraph requirements are safety standards, (b) of this section, all passenger List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 238 which are not considered unnecessary equipment placed in service for the first obstacles to trade. Moreover, FRA Passenger equipment, Penalties, time on or after September 8, 2000, and sought, to the extent practicable, to state Railroad safety, Reporting and prior to March 9, 2010, shall have at the requirements in terms of the recordkeeping requirements. both the forward and rear ends an anti-

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

climbing mechanism capable of § 238.211 Collision posts. paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, resisting an upward or downward (a) Except as further specified in this two forward collision posts, located at vertical force of 100,000 pounds without paragraph, paragraphs (b) through (d) of approximately the one-third points failure. All passenger equipment placed this section, and § 238.209(b)— laterally, meeting the requirements set in service for the first time on or after (1) All passenger equipment placed in forth in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of March 9, 2010, shall have at both the service for the first time on or after this section: forward and rear ends an anti-climbing September 8, 2000, shall have either: (2) Each collision post acting together mechanism capable of resisting an (i) Two full-height collision posts, with its supporting car body structure upward or downward vertical force of located at approximately the one-third shall be capable of withstanding the 100,000 pounds without permanent points laterally, at each end. Each following loads individually applied at deformation. When coupled together in collision post shall have an ultimate any angle within 15 degrees of the any combination to join two vehicles, longitudinal shear strength of not less longitudinal axis: AAR Type H and Type F tight-lock than 300,000 pounds at a point even (i) A 500,000-pound horizontal force couplers satisfy the requirements of this with the top of the underframe member applied at a point even with the top of paragraph (a). to which it is attached. If reinforcement the underframe, without exceeding the (b) Except for a cab car or an MU is used to provide the shear value, the ultimate strength of either the post or its locomotive, each locomotive ordered on reinforcement shall have full value for supporting car body structure; or after September 8, 2000, or placed in a distance of 18 inches up from the (ii) A 200,000-pound horizontal force service for the first time on or after underframe connection and then taper applied at a point 30 inches above the September 9, 2002, shall have an anti- to a point approximately 30 inches top of the underframe, without climbing mechanism at its forward end above the underframe connection; or exceeding the ultimate strength of either capable of resisting both an upward and (ii) An equivalent end structure that the post or its supporting car body downward vertical force of 200,000 can withstand the sum of forces that structure; and pounds without failure. Locomotives each collision post in paragraph (a)(1)(i) (iii) A 60,000-pound horizontal force required to be constructed in of this section is required to withstand. applied at any height along the post accordance with subpart D of part 229 For analysis purposes, the required above the top of the underframe, of this chapter shall have an anti- forces may be assumed to be evenly without permanent deformation of climbing mechanism in compliance distributed at the end structure at the either the post or its supporting car with § 229.206 of this chapter, in lieu of underframe joint. body structure. the requirements of this paragraph. (2) The requirements of this paragraph (3) Prior to or during structural (a) do not apply to unoccupied deformation, each collision post acting 4. Revise § 238.209 to read as follows: passenger equipment operating in a together with its supporting car body § 238.209 Forward end structure of passenger train, or to the rear end of a structure shall be capable of absorbing locomotives, including cab cars and MU locomotive if the end is unoccupied by a minimum of 135,000 foot-pounds of locomotives. design. energy (0.18 megajoule) with no more (a)(1) The skin covering the forward- (b) Except for a locomotive that is than 10 inches of longitudinal, facing end of each locomotive, constructed on or after January 1, 2009, permanent deformation into the including a cab car and an MU and is subject to the requirements of occupied volume, in accordance with locomotive, shall be: subpart D of part 229 of this chapter, the following: 1 (i) The collision post shall be loaded (i) Equivalent to a ⁄2-inch steel plate each locomotive, including a cab car with a yield strength of 25,000 pounds- and an MU locomotive, ordered on or longitudinally at a height of 30 inches per-square-inch—material of a higher after September 8, 2000, or placed in above the top of the underframe; yield strength may be used to decrease service for the first time on or after (ii) The load shall be applied with a the required thickness of the material September 9, 2002, shall have at its fixture, or its equivalent, having a width provided at least an equivalent level of forward end, in lieu of the structural sufficient to distribute the load directly strength is maintained; protection described in paragraph (a) of into the webs of the post, but of no more (ii) Designed to inhibit the entry of this section, either: than 36 inches, and either: (A) A flat plate with a height of 6 fluids into the occupied cab area of the (1) Two forward collision posts, inches; or equipment; and located at approximately the one-third points laterally, each capable of (B) A curved surface with a diameter (iii) Affixed to the collision posts or of no more than 48 inches; and other main vertical structural members withstanding: (i) A 500,000-pound longitudinal (iii) There shall be no complete of the forward end structure so as to add force at the point even with the top of separation of the post, its connection to to the strength of the end structure. the underframe, without exceeding the the underframe, its connection to either (2) As used in this paragraph (a), the ultimate strength of the joint; and the roof structure or anti-telescoping term ‘‘skin’’ does not include forward- (ii) A 200,000-pound longitudinal plate (if used), or of its supporting car facing windows and doors. force exerted 30 inches above the joint body structure. (b) The forward end structure of a cab of the post to the underframe, without (d) The end structure requirements of car or an MU locomotive may comply exceeding the ultimate strength; or this section apply only to the ends of a with the requirements of appendix F to (2) An equivalent end structure that semi-permanently coupled consist of this part in lieu of the requirements of can withstand the sum of the forces that articulated units, provided that: either § 238.211 (Collision posts) or each collision post in paragraph (b)(1) of (1) The railroad submits to FRA under § 238.213 (Corner posts), or both, this section is required to withstand. the procedures specified in § 238.21 a provided that the end structure is (c)(1) Each cab car and MU documented engineering analysis designed to protect the occupied locomotive ordered on or after May 10, establishing that the articulated volume for its full height, from the 2010, or placed in service for the first connection is capable of preventing underframe to the anti-telescoping plate time on or after March 8, 2012, shall disengagement and telescoping to the (if used) or roof rails. have at its forward end, in lieu of the same extent as equipment satisfying the 5. Revise § 238.211 to read as follows: structural protection described in anti-climbing and collision post

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1229

requirements contained in this subpart; either the post or its supporting car post or its supporting car body and body structure. structure; (2) FRA finds the analysis persuasive. (3) Prior to or during structural (iii) A 30,000-pound longitudinal 6. Revise § 238.213 to read as follows: deformation, each corner post acting force applied at the point of attachment together with its supporting car body to the roof structure, without permanent § 238.213 Corner posts. structure shall be capable of absorbing deformation of either the post or its (a)(1) Except as further specified in a minimum of 120,000 foot-pounds of supporting car body structure; paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section energy (0.16 megajoule) with no more (iv) A 20,000-pound longitudinal and § 238.209(b), each passenger car than 10 inches of longitudinal, force applied at any height along the shall have at each end of the car, placed permanent deformation into the post above the top of the underframe, ahead of the occupied volume, two full- occupied volume, in accordance with without permanent deformation of height corner posts, each capable of the following: either the post or its supporting car resisting together with its supporting car (i) The corner post shall be loaded body structure; body structure: longitudinally at a height of 30 inches (v) A 300,000-pound lateral force (i) A 150,000-pound horizontal force above the top of the underframe; applied at a point even with the top of applied at a point even with the top of (ii) The load shall be applied with a the underframe, without exceeding the the underframe, without exceeding the fixture, or its equivalent, having a width ultimate strength of either the post or its ultimate strength of either the post or its sufficient to distribute the load directly supporting car body structure; supporting car body structure; into the webs of the post, but of no more (vi) A 100,000-pound lateral force (ii) A 20,000-pound horizontal force than 36 inches and either: applied at a point 18 inches above the applied at the point of attachment to the (A) A flat plate with a height of 6 top of underframe, without permanent roof structure, without exceeding the inches; or deformation of either the post or its ultimate strength of either the post or its (B) A curved surface with a diameter supporting car body structure; and (vii) A 45,000-pound lateral force supporting car body structure; and of no more than 48 inches; and applied at any height along the post (iii) A 30,000-pound horizontal force (iii) There shall be no complete above the top of the underframe, applied at a point 18 inches above the separation of the post, its connection to without permanent deformation of top of the underframe, without the underframe, its connection to either either the post or its supporting car permanent deformation of either the the roof structure or anti-telescoping body structure. post or its supporting car body plate (if used), or of its supporting car (3) A second corner post shall be structure. body structure. located behind the stepwell and, acting (2) For purposes of this paragraph (a), (c)(1) Each cab car and MU together with its supporting car body the orientation of the applied horizontal locomotive ordered on or after May 10, structure, shall be capable of forces shall range from longitudinal 2010, or placed in service for the first withstanding the following horizontal inward to lateral inward. time on or after March 8, 2012, utilizing loads individually applied toward the (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph low-level passenger boarding on the inside of the vehicle: (c) of this section, each cab car and MU non-operating side of the cab end shall (i) A 300,000-pound longitudinal locomotive ordered on or after May 10, meet the corner post requirements of force applied at a point even with the 2010, or placed in service for the first paragraph (b) of this section for the top of the underframe, without time on or after March 8, 2012, shall corner post on the side of the cab exceeding the ultimate strength of either have at its forward end, in lieu of the containing the control stand. In lieu of the post or its supporting car body structural protection described in the requirements of paragraph (b) of this structure; paragraph (a) of this section, two corner section, and after FRA review and (ii) A 100,000-pound longitudinal posts ahead of the occupied volume, approval of a plan, including acceptance force applied at a point 18 inches above meeting all of the requirements set forth criteria, to evaluate compliance with the top of the underframe, without in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this this paragraph (c), each such cab car and permanent deformation of either the section: MU locomotive may have two corner post or its supporting car body (2) Each corner post acting together posts on the opposite (non-operating) structure; with its supporting car body structure side of the cab from the control stand (iii) A 45,000-pound longitudinal shall be capable of withstanding the meeting all of the requirements set forth force applied at any height along the following loads individually applied in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of this post above the top of the underframe, toward the inside of the vehicle at all section: without permanent deformation of angles in the range from longitudinal to (2) One corner post shall be located either the post or its supporting car lateral: ahead of the stepwell and, acting body structure; (i) A 300,000-pound horizontal force together with its supporting car body (iv) A 100,000-pound lateral force applied at a point even with the top of structure, shall be capable of applied at a point even with the top of the underframe, without exceeding the withstanding the following horizontal the underframe, without exceeding the ultimate strength of either the post or its loads individually applied toward the ultimate strength of either the post or its supporting car body structure; inside of the vehicle: supporting car body structure; (ii) A 100,000-pound horizontal force (i) A 150,000-pound longitudinal (v) A 30,000-pound lateral force applied at a point 18 inches above the force applied at a point even with the applied at a point 18 inches above the top of the underframe, without top of the underframe, without top of the underframe, without permanent deformation of either the exceeding the ultimate strength of either permanent deformation of either the post or its supporting car body the post or its supporting car body post or its supporting car body structure; and structure; structure; and (iii) A 45,000-pound horizontal force (ii) A 30,000-pound longitudinal force (vi) A 20,000-pound lateral force applied at any height along the post applied at a point 18 inches above the applied at any height along the post above the top of the underframe, top of the underframe, without above the top of the underframe, without permanent deformation of permanent deformation of either the without permanent deformation of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

either the post or its supporting car (ii) The load shall be applied with a behind the stepwell, its connection to body structure. fixture, or its equivalent, having a width the underframe, its connection to either (4) Prior to or during structural sufficient to distribute the load directly the roof structure or anti-telescoping deformation, the two posts in into the webs of the post, but of no more plate (if used), or of its supporting car combination acting together with their than 36 inches and either: body structure. The corner post ahead of the stepwell is permitted to fail. (A supporting body structure shall be (A) A flat plate with a height of 6 inches; or graphical description of the forward end capable of absorbing a minimum of of a cab car or an MU locomotive 120,000 foot-pounds of energy (0.16 (B) A curved surface with a diameter of no more than 48 inches; and utilizing low-level passenger boarding megajoule) in accordance with the on the non-operating side of the cab end following: (iii) The corner post located behind the stepwell shall have no more than 10 is provided in Figure 1 to subpart C of (i) The corner posts shall be loaded inches of longitudinal, permanent this part.) longitudinally at a height of 30 inches deformation. There shall be no complete 7. Add Figure 1 to Subpart C of Part above the top of the underframe; separation of the corner post located 238 to read as follows:

8. Add appendix F to part 238 to read or both. In any case, the end structure must (2)(i) The striking surface of the object shall as follows: be designed to protect the occupied volume be centered at a height of 30 inches above the for its full height, from the underframe to the top of the underframe; Appendix F to Part 238—Alternative anti-telescoping plate (if used) or roof rails. (ii) The striking surface of the object shall have a width of no more than 36 inches and Dynamic Performance Requirements The requirements of this appendix are a diameter of no more than 48 inches; for Front End Structures of Cab Cars provided only as alternatives to the and MU Locomotives (iii) The center of the striking surface shall requirements of §§ 238.211 and 238.213, not be offset by 19 inches laterally from the As specified in § 238.209(b), the forward in addition to the requirements of those center of the cab car or MU locomotive, and end of a cab car or an MU locomotive may sections. Cab cars and MU locomotives are on the weaker side of the end frame if the comply with the requirements of this not required to comply with both the end frame’s strength is not symmetrical; and appendix in lieu of the requirements of either requirements of those sections and the (iv) Only the striking surface of the object § 238.211 (Collision posts) or § 238.213 requirements of this appendix, together. interacts with the end frame structure. (Corner posts), or both. The requirements of (3) As a result of the impact, there shall be this appendix are intended to be equivalent Alternative Requirements for Collision Posts no more than 10 inches of longitudinal, to the requirements of those sections and (a)(1) In lieu of meeting the requirements permanent deformation into the occupied allow for the application of dynamic of § 238.211, the front end frame acting volume. There shall also be no complete performance criteria to cab cars and MU together with its supporting car body separation of the post, its connection to the locomotives as an alternative to the underframe, its connection to either the roof structure shall be capable of absorbing a requirements of those sections. The structure or the anti-telescoping plate (if alternative dynamic performance minimum of 135,000 foot-pounds of energy used), or of its supporting car body structure. requirements are applicable to all cab cars (0.18 megajoule) prior to or during structural (A graphical description of the frontal impact and MU locomotives, and may in particular deformation by withstanding a frontal impact is provided in Figure 1 to this appendix.) be helpful for evaluating the compliance of with a rigid object in accordance with all of (4) The nominal weights of the object and cab cars and MU locomotives with shaped- the requirements set forth in paragraphs the cab car or MU locomotive, as ballasted, noses or crash energy management designs, (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this appendix: and the speed of the object may be adjusted

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1231

to impart the minimum of 135,000 foot- (2)(i) The striking surface of the object shall ahead of the stepwell is permitted to fail pounds of energy (0.18 megajoule) to be be centered at a height of 30 inches above the provided that— absorbed (Ea), in accordance with the top of the underframe; (A) The corner post located behind the following formula: Ea = E0¥Ef (ii) The striking surface of the object shall stepwell shall have no more than 10 inches of longitudinal, permanent deformation; and Where: have a width of no more than 36 inches and a diameter of no more than 48 inches; (B) There shall be no complete separation E0 = Energy of initially moving object at (iii) The center of the striking surface shall of that post, its connection to the underframe, 1 2 impact = ⁄2 m1*V0 . be aligned with the outboard edge of the cab its connection to either the roof structure or 1 2 Ef = Energy after impact = ⁄2 (m1 + m2)*Vf . car or MU locomotive, and on the weaker the anti-telescoping plate (if used), or of its V0 = Speed of initially moving object at side of the end frame if the end frame’s supporting car body structure. impact. strength is not symmetrical; and (4) The nominal weights of the object and Vf = Speed of both objects after collision = (iv) Only the striking surface of the object the cab car or MU locomotive, as ballasted, and the speed of the object may be adjusted m1*V0/(m1 + m2). interacts with the end frame structure. to impart the minimum of 120,000 foot- m1 = Mass of initially moving object. (3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph pounds of energy (0.16 megajoule) to be m2 = Mass of initially standing object. (b)(3)(ii) of this appendix, as a result of the impact, there shall be no more than 10 inches absorbed (Ea), in accordance with the (Figure 1 shows as an example a cab car following formula: Ea = E0¥Ef or an MU locomotive having a weight of of longitudinal, permanent deformation into the occupied volume. There shall also be no Where: 100,000 pounds and the impact object having complete separation of the post, its E0 = Energy of initially moving object at a weight of 14,000 pounds, so that a 1 2 connection to the underframe, its connection impact = ⁄2 m1*V0 . minimum speed of 18.2 mph would satisfy 1 2 to either the roof structure or the anti- Ef = Energy after impact = ⁄2 (m1 + m2)*Vf . the collision-energy requirement.) telescoping plate (if used), or of its V0 = Speed of initially moving object at Alternative Requirements for Corner Posts supporting car body structure. (A graphical impact. description of the frontal impact is provided Vf = Speed of both objects after collision = (b)(1) In lieu of meeting the requirements in Figure 2 to this appendix.); and m1*V0/(m1 + m2). of § 238.213, the front end frame acting (ii) After FRA review and approval of a m1 = Mass of initially moving object. together with its supporting car body plan, including acceptance criteria, to m2 = Mass of initially standing object. structure shall be capable of absorbing a evaluate compliance with this paragraph (b), (Figure 2 shows as an example a cab car minimum of 120,000 foot-pounds of energy cab cars and MU locomotives utilizing low- or an MU locomotive having a weight of (0.16 megajoule) prior to or during structural level passenger boarding on the non- 100,000 pounds and the impact object having deformation by withstanding a frontal impact operating side of the cab may have two, full- a weight of 14,000 pounds, so that a with a rigid object in accordance with all of height corner posts on that side, one post minimum speed of 17.1 mph would satisfy the requirements set forth in paragraphs located ahead of the stepwell and one located the collision-energy requirement.) (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this appendix: behind it, so that the corner post located BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 1232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.005 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1233

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 31, 2009. Karen J. Rae, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E9–31411 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–C

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:16 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAR3.SGM 08JAR3 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3 ER08JA10.006 Friday, January 8, 2010

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, 264, et al. Revisions to the Requirements for: Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member Countries, Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, Submitting Exception Reports for Export Shipments of Hazardous Wastes, and Imports of Hazardous Wastes; Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: EPA has established a G. Changes to 40 CFR 266.80(a) AGENCY docket for this action under Docket ID H. Changes to 40 CFR 271.1 No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0018. All IV. Discussion of Comments Received in 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, documents in the docket are listed on Response to the Proposed Rulemaking and 271 the http://www.regulations.gov Web and the Agency’s Responses A. OECD Revisions site. Although listed in the index, some [EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0018; FRL–9098–7] B. SLAB Revisions information is not publicly available, C. Export Exception Report Technical RIN 2050–AE93 e.g., Confidential Business Information Correction and Import Revisions (CBI) or other information whose V. Future Rulemaking Revisions to the Requirements for: disclosure is restricted by statute. VI. Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule Transboundary Shipments of Certain other material, such as A. Introduction Hazardous Wastes Between OECD copyrighted material, is not placed on B. Analytical Scope Member Countries, Export Shipments the Internet and will be publicly C. Cost Impacts of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, available only in hard copy form. D. Benefits VII. State Authorization Submitting Exception Reports for Publicly available docket materials are A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized Export Shipments of Hazardous available either electronically through States Wastes, and Imports of Hazardous http://www.regulations.gov or in hard B. Effect on State Authorization Wastes copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Planning and Review Agency (EPA). Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to B. Paperwork Reduction Act ACTION: Final rule. 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act excluding legal holidays. The telephone D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 SUMMARY: E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This rule amends certain number for the Public Reading Room is existing regulations promulgated under F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation (202) 566–1744, and the telephone and Coordination With Indian Tribal the hazardous waste provisions of the number for the RCRA Docket is (202) Resource Conservation and Recovery Governments 566–0270). G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Act (RCRA) regarding hazardous waste FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Children From Environmental Health exports from and imports into the Laura Coughlan, Materials Recovery and Risks and Safety Risks United States. Specifically, the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions amendments implement recent changes Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Concerning Regulations That to the agreements concerning the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, transboundary movement of hazardous (5304P), Environmental Protection Distribution, or Use waste among countries belonging to the Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, I. National Technology Transfer Organization for Economic Cooperation NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone Advancement Act and Development (OECD), establish number: (703) 308–0005; fax number: J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in notice and consent requirements for (703) 308–0514; e-mail address: [email protected]. Minority Populations and Low-Income spent lead-acid batteries intended for Populations reclamation in a foreign country, specify SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: K. Congressional Review Act that all exception reports concerning I. General Information hazardous waste exports be sent to the A. Does This Final Rule Apply to Me? I. General Information International Compliance and B. List of Acronyms Used in This Final Rule A. Does This Final Rule Apply to Me? Assurance Division in the Office of C. What are the Statutory Authorities for 1. OECD Revisions Enforcement and Compliance This Final Rule? Assurance’s Office of Federal Activities II. Background The revisions regarding the OECD in in Washington, DC, and require U.S. A. OECD Revisions this final rule affect all persons who B. SLAB Revisions receiving facilities to match EPA- export or import hazardous waste, provided import consent documentation C. Exception Reports for Hazardous Waste Exports export or import universal waste, or to incoming hazardous waste import export spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) shipments and to submit to EPA a copy D. Documenting Hazardous Waste Import Shipments destined for recovery operations in of the matched import consent E. Proposed Rule OECD Member countries, except for documentation and RCRA hazardous III. Summary of the Final Rule Mexico and Canada. Any transboundary waste manifest for each import A. Changes to 40 CFR 262.10(d) movement of hazardous wastes between shipment. B. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E the United States and either Mexico or C. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H DATES: This final rule is effective July 7, D. Changes to 40 CFR 263.10(d) Canada will continue to be governed (or 2010. The incorporation by reference of E. Changes to 40 CFR 264.12(a)(2) and 40 addressed) by their respective bilateral certain publications listed in the rule is CFR 265.12(a)(2) agreements and applicable regulations. approved by the Director of the Federal F. Changes to 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 40 Potentially affected entities may Register as of July 7, 2010. CFR 265.71(a)(3) include, but are not limited to:

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Utilities ...... 221100 4939 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ...... 324 29 Chemical Manufacturing ...... 325100 28 Primary Metal Manufacturing ...... 331 33 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing ...... 332 34 Machinery Manufacturing ...... 333 35 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing ...... 334110 357

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1237

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing ...... 335 36 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing ...... 336 37 Miscellaneous Manufacturing ...... 339900 39 Scrap and Waste Materials ...... 423930 5093 Material Recovery Facilities ...... 562920 4953

2. SLAB Revisions SLABs for reclamation in any foreign The revisions regarding SLABs in this country. Potentially affected entities final rule affect all persons who export may include, but are not limited to:

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Hazardous Waste Collectors ...... 562112 4212 Recyclable Material Hauling, Long-Distance ...... 484230 4213 Batteries, Automotive, Merchant Wholesalers ...... 423120 5013 Lead-acid Storage Batteries, Manufacturing ...... 335911 3691 Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores ...... 441310 5013 Tire Dealers ...... 441320 5014 All other General Merchandise Stores ...... 452990 5399 New Car Dealers ...... 441110 5511 Recyclable Material Wholesaler ...... 423930 5093 Other Waste Collection ...... 562119 4212 Recyclable Material Collection ...... 562111 4212 Services, Solid Waste Collection Marinas ...... 713930 4493 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, TL ...... 484121 4213 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, LTL ...... 484122 4213 Specialized Freight Trucking ...... 484200 4213 Freight Carriers (except air couriers), Air Scheduled ...... 481112 4512 Freight Charter Services, Air ...... 481212 4522 Freight Railways, Line-Haul ...... 482111 4011 Freight Transportation, Deep Sea, to and from Domestic Ports ...... 483113 4424 Freight Transportation, Deep Sea, to or from Foreign Ports ...... 483111 4412

3. Exception Report Revisions for of this final rule affect all persons who Exports Under Subparts E and H of 40 export hazardous waste, universal CFR Part 262 waste, or SLABs to any foreign country. The exception report change to 40 Potentially affected entities may CFR part 262, subpart E and subpart H include, but are not limited to:

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Utilities ...... 221100 4939 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ...... 324 29 Chemical Manufacturing ...... 325100 28 Primary Metal Manufacturing ...... 331 33 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing ...... 332 34 Machinery Manufacturing ...... 333 35 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing ...... 334110 357 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing ...... 335 36 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing ...... 336 37 Miscellaneous Manufacturing ...... 339900 39 Scrap and Waste Materials ...... 423930 5093

4. Import Revisions from a foreign country that must comply Member countries, as well as in non- The revisions regarding imports in with either 264.71(a)(3) or 265.71(a)(3). OECD countries. Potentially affected this final rule affect all facilities This includes those hazardous waste entities may include, but are not limited receiving imported hazardous waste import shipments originating in OECD to:

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Hazardous Waste Collectors ...... 562112 4212 Recyclable Material Wholesaler ...... 423930 5093 Other Waste Collection ...... 562119 4212 Recyclable Material Collection Services, Solid Waste Collection ...... 562111 4212 Scrap and Waste Materials ...... 423930 5093

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Industry sector NAICS SIC

Material Recovery Facilities ...... 562920 4953

The lists of potentially affected affected by this action. However, this consult the person listed in the entities in the above tables may not be action may affect other entities not preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER exhaustive. The Agency’s aim is to listed in these tables. If you have INFORMATION CONTACT. provide a guide for readers regarding questions regarding the applicability of B. List of Acronyms Used in This Final those entities that potentially could be this final rule to a particular entity, Rule

Acronym Meaning

BCI ...... Battery Council International. CBI ...... Confidential Business Information. CERCLA ...... Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations. EPA ...... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FR ...... Federal Register. HSWA ...... Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. LAB ...... Lead-Acid Battery. NAICS ...... North American Industrial Classification System. NTTAA ...... National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. NAFTA ...... North American Free Trade Agreement. OECD ...... Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OMB ...... Office of Management and Budget. OSWER ...... Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. RCRA ...... Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. RFA ...... Regulatory Flexibility Act. SIC ...... Standard Industrial Classification. SLAB ...... Spent Lead-Acid Battery. SBREFA ...... Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. TRI ...... Toxics Release Inventory. UMRA ...... Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

C. What Are the Statutory Authorities Convention, unless otherwise provided EPA then promulgated as a final rule for This Final Rule? in the Articles of the 1960 Convention. under RCRA on April 12, 1996 (61 FR One such Council Decision addresses 16289). Since that time, the OECD has The authority to promulgate this rule the transboundary movement of waste, made a number of changes to the waste is found in sections 1006, 2002(a), which is the subject of this final rule. shipment regime, necessitating changes 3001–3010, 3013, and 3017 of the Solid There are currently thirty OECD to the RCRA regulations. Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Member countries: Australia, Austria, On June 14, 2001, the OECD Council Resource Conservation and Recovery Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, amended the ‘‘Decision of the Council Act (RCRA), and as amended by the Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, C(92)39/FINAL Concerning the Control Hazardous and Solid Waste Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, of Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Destined for Recovery’’ by adopting 6921–6930, 6934, and 6938. Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, ‘‘Revision of Decision C(92)39/FINAL on II. Background Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, the Control of Transboundary South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Movement of Wastes Destined for A. OECD Revisions Switzerland, Turkey, the United Recovery Operations’’ (hereafter referred 1. What Is the OECD? Kingdom, and the United States. The to as the 2001 OECD Decision). The goal OECD country Web site for each of the 2001 OECD Decision was to The OECD is an international Member country may be found at http:// harmonize the procedures and organization established in 1960 to www.oecd.org/infobycountry/. requirements of the OECD with those of assist Member countries in achieving the Basel Convention 1 and to eliminate sustainable economic growth, 2. What OECD Decisions Form the Basis duplicative activities between the two employment, and an increased standard of the OECD Revisions in This Final of living, while simultaneously ensuring Rule? 1 The Basel Convention on the Control of the protection of human health and the The current RCRA regulations Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes environment. OECD Member countries regarding waste shipments destined for and their Disposal is a comprehensive global are concerned with a host of recovery within the OECD are found in environmental agreement on hazardous and other international socio-economic and 40 CFR part 262, subpart H. These wastes. The Convention has 172 Member countries, also known as Parties, and aims to protect human political issues, including regulations are based on the March 30, health and the environment against the adverse environmental issues. To address these 1992, ‘‘Decision of the Council C(92)39/ effects resulting from the generation, management, issues, the OECD Council may negotiate FINAL Concerning the Control of transboundary movements and disposal of Council Decisions, which are Transfrontier Movements of Wastes hazardous and other wastes. A copy of the ’’ convention text has been placed in the docket international agreements that create Destined for Recovery (hereinafter established for this rulemaking. More information binding commitments on the United referred to as the 1992 Decision) that on the Basel Convention may be found at http:// States under the terms of the OECD www.basel.int.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1239

international organizations as much as from three options for managing did not receive written confirmation practical. These changes include hazardous waste spent lead-acid from the recovery facility that the revisions to the original established batteries. They may manage the batteries hazardous waste was received; framework (such as reducing the levels under the streamlined standards (3) The hazardous waste was returned of control from a three-tiered system to specifically for SLABs found in 40 CFR to the United States. a two-tiered system), while also adding part 266, subpart G, the streamlined D. Documenting Hazardous Waste entirely new provisions (for example, Universal Wastes standards for all Import Shipments the new certificate of recovery hazardous waste batteries found in 40 requirement). Subsequent to the 2001 CFR part 273, or the full Subtitle C Prior to this final rule, under OECD Decision, an addendum, hazardous waste management §§ 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3), U.S. C(2001)107/ADD1 (hereafter referred to regulations found in 40 CFR parts 262– receiving treatment, storage, and as the 2001 OECD Addendum), which 265, 267, 268, and 270. For the complete disposal facilities (TSDFs) had to submit consists of revised versions of the discussion of what these requirements a copy of the hazardous waste manifest notification and movement documents entail for disposal or recycling within to EPA to document individual and the instructions to complete them, the United States, please see Section hazardous waste import shipments was adopted by the OECD Council on II.B.3 of the proposed rule (73 FR within 30 days of shipment delivery. February 28, 2002. The addendum was 58394). E. Proposed Rule incorporated into the 2001 OECD 3. What Does a Business Have To Do Decision as section C of Appendix 8, On October 6, 2008, EPA published a When Exporting SLABs for Recycling? and the combined version was issued in Federal Register notice seeking May 2002 as C(2001)107/FINAL. The A company seeking to export SLABs comment on proposed revisions to the appendices of Decision C(2001)107/ may choose from the same three requirements regarding the export and Final were amended three times by regulatory options described above. If import of hazardous wastes from and C(2004)20, C(2005)141, and they choose to follow the universal into the United States (see 73 FR 58388 C(2008)156.2 The Decision, ‘‘Decision of waste regulations, exporters of SLABs and following pages). First, we proposed the Council C(2001)107/FINAL, for reclamation are subject to the export to modify the requirements concerning Concerning the Control of requirements in 40 CFR part 273 the transboundary movement of Transboundary Movements of Wastes (including the notice and consent hazardous waste destined for recovery Destined for Recovery Operations, as requirements) or, if the SLABs are to be among Member countries to the OECD amended by C(2004)20; C(2005)141 and exported to an OECD Member country in order to implement the Amended C(2008)156,’’ is hereinafter referred to as for recovery, the export requirements 2001 OECD Decision. The changes, the Amended 2001 OECD Decision. (including notice and consent) in 40 largely in 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, CFR part 262, subpart H. The second included reducing the number of B. SLAB Revisions option would be for the export to follow control levels, exempting qualifying 1. What are SLABs? the full subtitle C hazardous waste shipments sent for laboratory analyses export regulations in 40 CFR part 262, from certain paperwork requirements, Lead-acid batteries (LABs) are requiring recovery facilities to submit a secondary, wet cell batteries that subparts E or H. Most likely, SLAB exporters will choose to follow the certificate of recovery, adding contain liquid and can be recharged for provisions for the return or re-export of many uses. They are the most widely regulatory provisions specific to SLABs in 40 CFR part 266, subpart G. Prior to wastes subject to the Amber control used rechargeable batteries in the world procedures, and clarifying certain and are mainly used as starting, lighting, today’s rule, under part 266, SLABs that were destined for reclamation were existing provisions that were identified and ignition (SLI) power batteries found as potentially ambiguous to the in automobiles and other vehicles. A exempt from the RCRA export requirements in 40 CFR part 262, regulated community. Second, we rechargeable SLAB is spent if it no proposed to amend the regulations in 40 longer performs effectively and cannot subparts E and H (including the notice and consent requirements). Today’s rule CFR part 266, subpart G regarding the be recharged. Battery failure is most management of SLABs being reclaimed commonly attributed to water loss and adds export requirements to part 266 that mirror those that apply to universal to require notice and consent for those grid corrosion during normal use. batteries intended for reclamation in a SLABs are considered both solid and waste, as described later in this preamble. foreign country, mirroring the existing hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of export requirements for exports of RCRA, because they are classified as C. Exception Reports for Hazardous RCRA universal waste batteries, to spent materials that exhibit the toxicity Waste Exports create a more uniform practice for characteristic for lead (e.g., D008), and exporting SLABs for recovery under the corrosivity characteristic for the Prior to this final rule, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, exception RCRA. Third, we proposed a technical sulfuric acid electrolyte in the battery correction in the exception reporting (e.g., D001). For a full discussion of reports were required to be submitted by the exporter to the EPA Administrator if requirements of §§ 262.55 and 262.87(b) SLAB composition and how SLABs are for hazardous waste exports to specify managed, please see Sections II.B.1 and any of the following occurred: (1) The exporter did not receive a that all exception reports submitted to II.B.2 of the proposed rule (73 FR copy of the RCRA hazardous waste EPA be sent to the International 58393). manifest (if applicable) signed by the Compliance and Assurance Division in 2. How Must a Business Manage SLABs transporter identifying the point of the Office of Enforcement and Intended for Domestic Recycling or departure of the waste from the United Compliance Assurance’s Office of Disposal? States, within forty-five (45) days from Federal Activities in Washington, DC Businesses subject to the RCRA the date it was accepted by the initial rather than to the Administrator to hazardous waste regulations may choose transporter; ensure better oversight of return (2) Within ninety (90) days from the shipments to the U.S. and compliance 2 Copies of these amendments have been placed date the hazardous waste was accepted with the exception reporting in the docket established for this rulemaking. by the initial transporter, the exporter requirements without any additional

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory burden for U.S. exporters. requirements of subpart H. Finally, this Convention. Accordingly, we are Fourth and last, we proposed to amend: rule adds language in § 262.58(b) of making these same conforming changes the hazardous waste import subpart E to clarify that hazardous waste to EPA’s OECD rule. requirements in 40 CFR part 262, exports subject to subpart E and Wastes subject to the Green control hazardous waste imports subject to subpart F to require that U.S. importers procedures are those wastes listed in give the initial transporter a copy of the subpart F are not subject to subpart H Parts I and II of Appendix 3 to the EPA-provided documentation in order to reduce confusion for U.S. Amended 2001 OECD Decision. Part I confirming EPA’s consent to the import exporters and importers. of the hazardous waste when they contains wastes listed in Annex IX of C. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, the Basel Convention, to which the provide the RCRA hazardous waste Subpart H manifest; and, the import shipment OECD has made and noted adjustments, document submittal requirements in All but the last three changes as appropriate. Part II contains §§ 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3) to discussed below are necessary to additional wastes subject to the Green require that the U.S. receiving facility conform to the revisions in the control procedures, which the OECD submit to EPA a copy of the EPA Amended 2001 OECD Decision. These has assessed as not posing any risk to consent documentation along with the changes range from substantive human health or the environment under RCRA hazardous waste manifest within revisions and amendments to changes in its risk criteria. terminology to simple editorial changes. thirty days of import shipment delivery. Wastes subject to the Amber control Both proposed amendments were Collectively, these changes serve to implement the Amended 2001 OECD procedures are those wastes listed in intended to improve EPA’s oversight of Parts I and II of Appendix 4 to the such imports. For a more detailed Decision, as well as clarify certain sections that were previously Amended 2001 OECD Decision. Part I description of the proposed revisions, as contains wastes listed in Annexes II and well as the intended benefits of each ambiguous to the regulated community. Changes to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H VIII of the Basel Convention, to which revision, please see Section I.D of the the OECD has made and noted proposed rule (73 FR 58390 and include: adjustments, as appropriate. Part II following pages). 1. Changes in Terminology The Agency received four sets of contains additional wastes subject to the In the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, comments in response to its October 6, Amber control procedures, which the the OECD Council updated several 2008 proposal. The more significant OECD has assessed as posing a risk to terms and definitions used in the 1992 comments on this proposal are human health or the environment under Decision. EPA believes that these addressed later in this preamble, but all its risk criteria. Further, all wastes changes do not result in substantive are addressed in background documents formerly appearing on the Red list are changes to the intent of the for today’s final rule, which are in the subject to the Amber control requirements, but merely bring them in docket. After considering all comments, procedures. line with current terminology used in we are finalizing the revisions practice and in other international U.S. importers and exporters of substantially as proposed, with one agreements. To limit any unnecessary hazardous waste subject to the subpart modification. confusion between the U.S. regulations H requirements of 40 CFR part 262 III. Summary of the Final Rule and those of other OECD Member should be aware that wastes listed in countries and to promote consistency Part I of both the new OECD Amber and A. Changes to 40 CFR 262.10(d) with the Amended 2001 OECD Green waste lists have not retained their This final rule updates § 262.10(d) to Decision, this final rule adopts the OECD waste codes. Consequently, the reflect that export shipments of SLABs following changes in terminology: relevant Basel waste codes should be being managed under 40 CFR part 266, • ‘‘Transfrontier’’ to ‘‘transboundary’’; used when implementing the export and subpart G that are destined for recovery • ‘‘Tracking document’’ to ‘‘movement import procedures. However, wastes in any of the OECD Member countries document’’; listed in Part II of both the new OECD • listed in § 262.58(a)(1) are now subject ‘‘Amber-list controls’’ to ‘‘Amber Amber and Green waste lists do retain to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H. This control procedures’’; their original OECD waste codes, as change is necessary to conform with the • ‘‘Notifier’’ to ‘‘exporter’’; and • ‘‘Consignee’’ to ‘‘importer.’’ 3 listed in the 1992 Decision. This two- scope in the updated § 262.80(a). part system is necessary to ensure that B. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, 2. The number of different levels of wastes not yet explicitly listed under Subpart E control is reduced from three (Green, the Basel Convention will continue to Amber, and Red) to two (Green and This final rule amends the exception have the same level of control applied Amber) and the waste lists have been to them when destined for recovery reporting requirements in § 262.55 to updated. specify that all exception reports be under the Amended 2001 OECD submitted to the International The 2001 OECD Decision replaced the Decision. Compliance and Assurance Division in OECD three-tiered waste list (Green, Both the Green waste list and the the Office of Enforcement and Amber, and Red) system with a two- Amber waste list are cited in § 262.89. tiered system (Green and Amber) to Compliance Assurance’s Office of This rule amends § 262.89(d) to conform to the Basel Convention waste Federal Activities in Washington, DC incorporate by reference the most rather than to the Administrator. In lists more closely. Further, the revised OECD waste lists, as provided by the current OECD waste lists from the addition, this rule also updates Amended 2001 OECD Decision. Further, § 262.58(a) to reflect that export 2004 OECD Amendment, better correspond to those of the Basel the elimination of the Red list allows for shipments of SLABs being managed the consolidation of the provisions under 40 CFR part 266, subpart G that 3 currently found in § 262.89(b) and (c), are destined for recovery in any of the The change from ‘‘consignee’’ to ‘‘importer’’ is only being made in 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, and which appears in new final § 262.89(b). OECD Member countries listed in does not affect the use of consignee in 40 CFR part § 262.58(a)(1) are subject to the 262, subpart E.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1241

3. References to Unlisted Wastes Have the same conditions as set forth in the submission of signed copies to the Been Eliminated in Favor of ‘‘Wastes Amended 2001 OECD Decision. exporter and relevant competent Not Covered in Appendices 3 and 4 of U.S. exporters should be aware, authorities, fulfils the certificate of the OECD Decision’’ however, that even if their shipments recovery requirement. Although the Section 262.83(d) previously qualify for the laboratory analyses OECD movement document is addressed the general notification exemption under U.S. domestic law, recommended, the Amended 2001 requirements for unlisted wastes. some Member countries may elect to OECD Decision does not require Today’s rule renumbers this section as still apply the Amber control recovery facilities to use it. § 262.83(c) since the previous procedures to such shipments, requiring While some recovery facilities may § 262.83(c) addressed ‘‘Red-list wastes,’’ the exporter of a waste sample for not be subject to the import and other which is no longer included in the final laboratory analyses to inform the requirements because they are not rule. Today’s rule also replaces the term competent authorities of such a importing RCRA hazardous waste, these ‘‘unlisted wastes’’ with the phrase movement. Therefore, we recommend entities should be aware that the ‘‘wastes not covered in Appendices 3 that U.S. exporters check with the competent authorities of the exporting and 4 of the OECD Decision,’’ 4 so that competent authorities of each country to Member countries may still impose the wastes not on these lists are not find out if they require the Amber conditions outlined in the Amended automatically subject to the Amber control procedures for a sample that 2001 OECD Decision before the control procedures. Rather, ‘‘wastes not would qualify for the laboratory transactions can be completed. Thus, if covered in Appendices 3 and 4 of the analyses exemption. the waste is considered non-hazardous OECD Decision’’ will be subject to the 5. Recovery Facilities Must Submit a in the United States, EPA would not domestic rules and regulations of the Certificate of Recovery require a certificate of recovery from a countries of concern. U.S. facility. However, the competent This final rule implements the authority of the country of export may 4. Transboundary Movements May Now Amended 2001 OECD Decision’s require a certificate of recovery, and Qualify for a Laboratory Analysis requirement that a duly authorized may require that the exporter include Exemption representative of the recovery facility such a requirement in the contract The Amended 2001 OECD Decision submit a certificate of recovery to all between the exporter and importer. allows Member countries to decide interested parties (i.e., exporter, country 6. Amendments to the Notification through their domestic laws and of export, country of import), Requirements regulations that waste samples normally documenting that recovery of the waste subject to the Amber control procedures has been completed. A valid certificate The Amended 2001 OECD Decision will only be subject to the Green control of recovery is defined as a signed, introduced a series of notification procedures (e.g., the existing controls written and dated statement that affirms requirements that oblige EPA to make normally applied in commercial that the waste was recovered in the conforming amendments to its transactions) if such samples are manner agreed to by the parties to the hazardous waste regulations. destined for laboratory analyses to contract.5 This final rule also requires, Specifically, this final rule amends assess its physical or chemical as does the Amended 2001 OECD § 262.83(e) (which has been renumbered characteristics, or to determine its Decision, that the recovery facility send as § 262.83(d)) by incorporating several suitability for recovery operations, and the certificate of recovery as soon as new items that must be included in the providing that the amount of the waste possible, but no later than thirty (30) notification, including: samples qualifying for this exemption days after the completion of recovery • Exporter and importing recovery are not more than the minimum and no later than one (1) calendar year facility e-mail address; quantity reasonably needed to perform following the receipt of the waste by the • E-mail address for importer (if the analyses adequately in each recovery facility to the exporter and different from the importing recovery particular case up to a maximum of competent authorities of the countries of facility); twenty-five kilograms (25 kg/55 lbs). export and import by mail, e-mail • Address, telephone, fax, and e-mail Analytical samples also must be followed by mail, or fax followed by of intended transporter(s); mail. This final rule incorporates the • Means of transport envisioned; and appropriately packaged and labeled and • must be carried out under the terms of certificate of recovery provisions of the Specification of the type of recovery all applicable international transport Amended 2001 OECD Decision in operation(s) that will be used. agreements. Furthermore, any § 262.83(e). 7. Amendments to Procedures for transboundary movement of such The Amended 2001 OECD Decision Exports to Pre-Approved Facilities samples through non-OECD Member states that the completion of block 19 of Under the Amended 2001 OECD countries shall be subject to the OECD movement document, and the Decision and its predecessor, a pre- international law and to all applicable 5 approved recovery facility (also known national laws and regulations. Under both the 1992 Decision and the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, transboundary movements of as a pre-consented recovery facility) is This final rule allows waste samples wastes subject to the Amber control procedures may one that has been identified in advance that are sent for laboratory analyses to only occur under the terms of a valid written by the competent authority having be controlled under the Green control contract, or chain of contracts, or equivalent jurisdiction over that facility as procedures, as opposed to the Amber arrangements between facilities controlled by the same legal entity, starting with the exporter and acceptable for receiving certain control procedures, provided they meet terminating at the recovery facility. The contracts hazardous waste imports under must: (a) Clearly identify the generator of each type 4 Section 262.81 in the final revisions to the of waste, each person who shall have legal control simplified and accelerated notification regulatory text in 40 CFR part 262, subpart H of the wastes and the recovery facility; (b) provide procedures. For these facilities, the defines ‘‘OECD Decision’’ as ‘‘Decision of the that relevant requirements of the OECD Decisions competent authority must inform the Council C(2001)107/FINAL, Concerning the Control are taken into account and binding on all parties; OECD secretariat that the facility is pre- of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined and (c) specify which party to the contract shall for Recovery Operations, as Amended by C(2004)20; assume responsibility for ensuring alternative approved, and the waste types that are C(2005)141 and C(2008)156’’ for the purposes of the management of the wastes including, if necessary, acceptable for recovery. Pre-approval subpart. the return of the wastes. may be granted for a specific time frame

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

and may be revoked at any time by the addition, the R12/R13 recovery facility Amber control procedures shall apply. relevant competent authority. shall: In this case, the R12/R13 facility must The Amended 2001 OECD Decision • Certify the receipt of the hazardous submit a new notification document to established a time period for objection waste by sending a copy of the duly its competent authority and obtain to transboundary movements to pre- completed movement document within consent from its competent authority approved facilities and lengthened the three (3) working days of the receipt of and from the initial country of export to allowable coverage period for such wastes to the exporter and all the export of the hazardous waste back notifications. Specifically, the Decision competent authorities concerned; to that country for final recovery. If, • established a time period of seven (7) Retain the original movement however, the final R1–R11 recovery document for three (3) years; facility is located in a country different working days during which the relevant • competent authorities may object to the Certify the completion of the R12/ from the initial country of export, then transboundary movements of waste to R13 recovery operation by submitting a the Amber control procedures shall pre-approved facilities. The Decision certificate of recovery as soon as apply, but also the movement will in also established that the allowable possible, but no later than thirty (30) effect be treated as a ‘‘re-export’’ of waste coverage period for general notifications days after the completion of the R12/ to a third country. In this case, not only (or the period of time for which consent R13 recovery operation at that facility is a new notification document may be granted) may extend up to three and no later than one (1) calendar year required, but the competent authority of following the receipt of the waste by the (3) years. Today’s final rule amends the the initial country of export must also R12/R13 recovery facility; and current regulations to incorporate these be notified of the transboundary • Send the certificate of recovery to changes in § 262.83(b)(2)(ii) to reflect movement, and consent must be the exporter and to the competent obtained from the original country of the seven (7) day time period and in authorities of the countries of export § 262.83(b)(2)(i) to reflect the allowable export and the new countries of import, and import by either mail, e-mail export, and transit. For example, if a coverage period of up to three (3) years followed by mail, or by fax followed by for notifications. hazardous waste is exported from the mail. United States to a R12/R13 facility in 8. New Procedures for the Pretreatment The control procedures applied to the France, and then will be sent to a of Hazardous Wastes at R12/R13 transboundary movement of hazardous subsequent R1–R11 recovery facility in Recovery Facilities waste from an R12/R13 recovery facility Germany, the R12/R13 facility in France to a subsequent R1–R11 recovery facility The final rule incorporates the must submit a notification to and obtain vary depending on whether these consent from France (the new country of Amended 2001 OECD Decision’s new facilities are located within the same requirements for R12 and R13 recovery export), the United States (the original Member country or in a different country of export) and Germany (the facilities. R12 and R13 recovery Member country. facilities are transfer and storage/ new country of import for final When the subsequent R1–R11 recovery). accumulation facilities, respectively, recovery facility is located within the that do not recover the wastes The final rule incorporates all of these same Member country, the R12/R13 requirements in § 262.82(f). themselves. Because hazardous wastes recovery facility must obtain from the destined for recovery may have to subsequent R1–R11 recovery facility a 9. New Provisions Regarding Mixtures undergo treatment before a R1–R11 6 certificate that the ‘‘final’’ recovery of the of Hazardous Wastes recovery facility actually recovers them, hazardous waste at that facility has been The Amended 2001 OECD Decision the OECD considers R12 and R13 completed within one (1) calendar year contains controls and provisions related facilities as ‘‘intermediate or temporary following the delivery of the hazardous to the mixture of hazardous waste. operations.’’ The primary reason for the waste to the R1–R11 facility. The format Specifically, the Amended 2001 OECD new requirements is to ensure that the of the certificate of recovery is not fixed, Decision defines a mixture of hazardous subsequent R1–R11 recovery operation but it must, at a minimum, identify the waste as one that results from the receives the hazardous waste and code number of the notification intentional or unintentional mixing of completes its recovery in an document and the serial number of the two or more different hazardous wastes. environmentally sound manner. movement documents to which it However, under the Amended 2001 Specifically, when the notification pertains. The R12/R13 recovery facility OECD Decision, a single shipment of document lists an R12/R13 recovery must then transmit the certification hazardous wastes, consisting of two or facility, the exporter must indicate in document prepared by the R1–R11 more wastes, where each is separated, is the same notification document the recovery facility to the competent not considered a mixture of hazardous recovery facility or facilities where the authorities of the countries of import waste. subsequent R1–R11 recovery operation and export as soon as possible, but no The Amended 2001 OECD Decision takes place or may take place. In later than one (1) calendar year also provides that: following the delivery of the hazardous • A mixture of two or more Green 6 Recovery operations R1 through R11 are defined waste to the R1–R11 recovery facility. wastes should be subject to the Green as follows: R1, use as a fuel (other than in direct When the subsequent R1–R11 facility control procedures. However, the incineration) or other means to generate energy; R2, solvent reclamation/regeneration; R3, recycling/ is not located in the same Member regulated community should be aware reclamation of organic substances which are not country as the R12/R13 facility, a new that some OECD Member countries may used as solvents; R4, recycling/reclamation of notification must be made for the require, by domestic law that mixtures metals and metal compounds; R5, recycling/ transboundary movement of hazardous of different Green wastes be subject to reclamation of other inorganic materials; R6, waste by the R12/R13 recovery facility. the Amber control procedures. regeneration of acids or bases; R7, recovery of • components used for pollution abatement; R8, In addition, the applicable procedures A mixture consisting of a Green recovery of components used from catalysts; R9, differ depending upon the country waste and more than a ‘‘de minimis’’ used oil re-refining or other reuses of previously where the final recovery operation amount of Amber waste is subject to the used oil; R10, land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement; and, R11, occurs. In particular, if the final R1–R11 Amber control procedures. In the uses of residual materials obtained from any of the recovery facility is located in the initial absence of internationally accepted operations numbered R1–R10. country of export, then the normal criteria, the term ‘‘de minimis’’ should

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1243

be defined according to national Decision) on measures to be taken in return by any transit country as needed. regulations and procedures. case a transboundary movement of If the return shipment will cross any • A mixture containing two or more hazardous waste is subject to the Amber transit country, the return shipment Amber wastes is subject to the Amber control procedures and cannot be may only occur after EPA provides a control procedures. completed as intended (e.g., not in copy of the transit country’s consent to In this final rule, EPA has revised the accordance with the notification, the U.S. importer. The U.S. importer text in § 262.82(a) to clarify that only consents given by the competent must complete the return within ninety those wastes and waste mixtures authorities, or the terms of the contract). (90) days from the time EPA informs the considered hazardous under U.S. There may be a number of reasons for country of export of the need to return national regulations will be subject to this non-completion, for example, an the waste unless otherwise informed by the Amber control procedures within accident during the transport of the EPA in writing of an alternate timeframe the United States. This is consistent hazardous waste, improper notification, for the return. with longstanding EPA policy, and or any illegal action taken by someone When the incident involves an export should minimize confusion for the involved with the movement of the shipment from the United States, the regulated community. For example, hazardous waste. U.S. exporter must provide for the under the existing RCRA hazardous The Amended 2001 OECD Decision return of the hazardous waste shipment waste regulations, any mixture of an provides that if this uncompleted within ninety (90) days from the time Amber waste that exhibits one or more movement of hazardous waste (hereafter the country of import informs EPA of of the hazardous characteristics of referred to as the ‘‘incident’’), takes place the need to return the shipment unless ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or in the country of import, the competent otherwise informed by EPA in writing of toxicity under RCRA with a Green waste authority of that country shall an alternate timeframe for the return. shall be considered an Amber waste if immediately inform the competent The U.S. exporter must also submit an the mixture still exhibits one or more of authority of the country of export. The exception report to EPA. the RCRA hazardous waste competent authorities of the concerned (b) Re-Export of Hazardous Waste From characteristics and, thus, be subject to countries are to cooperate in resolving the Country of Import to a Third the Amber control procedures. the incident by making all necessary Country Conversely, if the resulting mixture no arrangements to ensure the best longer exhibits one or more of the RCRA alternative management of the Under the Amended 2001 OECD hazardous characteristics, it will instead hazardous waste. If alternative Decision, the re-export from the country be considered a Green waste, and be arrangements cannot be made to recover of import to a third country is subject to the Green control procedures. these wastes in an environmentally considered a new transboundary Because other OECD Member sound manner in the country of import, movement of hazardous waste. As a countries may require that the mixtures the hazardous waste must be returned to result, the Amber control procedures are listed above (that the U.S. sometimes the country of export or re-exported to applicable. The initial importer becomes considers subject to the Green control a third country. the exporter of the hazardous waste and, procedures) be subject to the Amber consequently, assumes all control procedures, the final rule (a) Return of Hazardous Waste to the responsibilities as an exporter. In includes notes stating that other OECD Country of Export addition, the notification must also Member countries may subject such Under the Amended 2001 OECD include the competent authority of the mixtures to the Amber control Decision, the return of the hazardous initial country of export who, in procedures. In such cases, U.S. waste to the country of export is to take accordance with the Amber control importers and exporters should be place within ninety (90) days from the procedures, may object to the re-export prepared to follow the Amber control time when the country of export was if the movement does not comply with procedures within those OECD Member informed of the incident, unless the the requirements set out by its domestic countries. concerned countries agree to another law. Re-export of a hazardous waste Finally, the Amended 2001 OECD period of time. The competent shipment from the United States to a Decision requires that notification for a authorities of both countries of export third country may therefore only occur transboundary movement of a mixture and transit (if applicable) are to be after the importer (acting as the new of hazardous wastes falling under the informed about the return of the exporter) submits a notification to EPA Amber control procedures should be hazardous waste and the reasons for its in compliance with the notice and made by the person performing the return. These authorities are prohibited consent procedures of § 262.83 and mixing activity (the generator of the from opposing or preventing the return obtains consent from the original mixture) or any other person acting as of the hazardous waste to the country of country of export, the new country of an exporter in place of the person export, so long as the movement import, and any transit countries. performing the mixing activity. In the complies with the requirements set out (c) Return of Hazardous Waste From the notification, relevant information on by the country of export’s domestic law. Country of Transit to the Country of each fraction of the waste, including its If the waste is returned through a Export code numbers, has to be given in order country of transit, the competent of importance. This final rule imposes authority of that country is to be If the incident takes place in the these requirements in 40 CFR notified and consent obtained in country of transit, the exporter should 262.82(a)(3). accordance with the normal Amber make arrangements so that the control procedures. hazardous waste still can be recovered 10. New Provisions Regarding the When the incident occurs in the in an environmentally sound manner in Return and Re-Export of Hazardous United States, the U.S. importer must the recovery facility of the importing Wastes Subject to the Amber Control inform EPA of the need to return the country to where it was originally Procedures shipment. EPA will then inform the destined. The competent authority of This final rule adopts the Amended countries of export and transit, citing the country of transit is to immediately 2001 OECD Decision’s more precise the reason(s) for returning the waste, inform the competent authorities of the provisions (than the earlier 1992 and request written consent to the countries of export and import and any

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

other countries of transit. If the exporter making any substantive revisions, but is These additional rows contain the new is unable to arrange for the recovery of seeking to eliminate any confusion on provisions that require exporters and the hazardous waste in an the part of the regulated community by transporters of SLABs being sent to a environmentally sound manner at the striving for consistency both within the foreign country for reclamation to meet recovery facility to where it was regulations and with the terms of the the universal waste requirements originally destined, the hazardous waste Amended 2001 OECD Decision. Some concerning the export of SLABs for should be returned, adhering to examples of these types of revisions reclamation. subsection (a) above, to the country of include changing ‘‘Subpart’’ to ‘‘subpart,’’ Specifically, exporters will need to export within ninety (90) days from the ‘‘OECD member’’ to ‘‘OECD Member,’’ either comply with the requirements in time when the country of export was and ‘‘thirty days’’ to ‘‘thirty (30) days.’’ 40 CFR part 262, subpart H when the informed of the incident or such other shipments are destined to any of the period of time as the concerned 13. Change to the Submittal Address for OECD Member countries listed in countries agree. The competent Exception Reports § 262.58(a)(1), or with the following authorities of the country of export and This final rule amends the exception requirements when the shipments are the countries of transit are to be reporting requirements in § 262.87(b) to destined for any country not listed in informed of the return, but they are specify that all exception reports are to § 262.58(a)(1): prohibited from opposing or preventing be submitted to the International • Comply with the requirements the return of the hazardous wastes to the Compliance and Assurance Division in applicable to a primary exporter in 40 country of export, so long as the the Office of Enforcement and CFR 262.53, 262.56(a)(1) through (4), movement complies with the Compliance Assurance’s Office of (6), and (b) and 262.57; • requirements set out by the country of Federal Activities in Washington, DC Export such SLABs only upon export’s domestic law. rather than the Administrator. consent of the receiving country and in When the United States is the transit conformance with the EPA country where the incident occurs, the D. Changes to 40 CFR 263.10(d) Acknowledgement of Consent as U.S. transporter must inform EPA of the This final rule updates § 263.10(d) to defined in subpart E of 40 CFR part 262 need to return the shipment. EPA will reflect that export shipments of SLABs of this chapter; and • then inform the country of export, citing being managed under 40 CFR part 266, Provide a copy of the EPA the reason(s) for returning the waste. subpart G that are destined for recovery Acknowledgment of Consent for the The U.S. transporter must then in any of the OECD Member countries shipment to the transporter transporting complete the return within ninety (90) listed in § 262.58(a)(1) are now subject the shipment for export. days from the time EPA informs the to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H. This The transporter of SLABs being sent country of export of the need to return change is necessary to conform with the to a foreign country for reclamation will the waste unless otherwise informed by scope in the updated § 262.80(a). need to comply with the applicable EPA in writing of an alternate timeframe requirements in 40 CFR part 262, E. Changes to 40 CFR 264.12(a)(2) and subpart H when the shipments are for the return. 40 CFR 265.12(a)(2) When the waste shipment from the destined to any of the OECD Member incident originated in the United States, This final rule amends §§ 264.12(a)(2) countries listed in § 262.58(a)(1). For the U.S. exporter must provide for the and 265.12(a)(2) by, among other things, export shipments of SLABs destined for return of the hazardous waste shipment requiring owners or operators of a country not listed in § 262.58(a)(1), within ninety (90) days from the time recovery facilities to submit a certificate such as Canada or Mexico, the the country of transit informs EPA of the of recovery as soon as possible after the transporter will not be able to accept a need to return the shipment unless recovery is completed, but no later than shipment if the transporter knows the otherwise informed by EPA in writing of thirty (30) days after the completion of shipment does not conform to the EPA an alternate timeframe for the return. recovery and no later than one (1) Acknowledgment of Consent, and will The U.S. exporter must also submit an calendar year following the receipt of have to ensure that: • exception report to EPA. the hazardous waste. This change is A copy of the EPA This final rule sets forth these re- necessary to conform to the Amended Acknowledgment of Consent export and return provisions of the 2001 OECD Decision. accompanies the shipment; and • The shipment is delivered to the Amended 2001 OECD Decision in F. Changes to 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and §§ 262.82(c), 262.82(d), and 262.82(e). foreign facility designated by the person 40 CFR 265.71(a)(3) initiating the shipment. 11. SLABs Are Now Covered by EPA’s This final rule amends §§ 264.71(a)(3) The new requirements at 40 CFR OECD Rule and 265.71(a)(3) by requiring owners or 266.80 will ensure greater protection of This final rule updates § 262.80(a) and operators of facilities receiving imported human health and the environment § 262.89(a) to reflect that export hazardous wastes to submit to EPA a through notification, tracking, and shipments of SLABs being managed copy of the relevant written management of SLABs. In addition to under 40 CFR part 266, subpart G that documentation of EPA’s consent to the harmonizing the RCRA hazardous waste are destined for recovery in any of the import along with a copy of the RCRA regulations for SLABs with the OECD Member countries listed in hazardous waste manifest for the notification and consent requirements § 262.58(a)(1) are subject to 40 CFR part incoming shipment within thirty (30) in the RCRA universal waste rules, 262, subpart H. days of shipment delivery. This will today’s final rule harmonizes the export enable EPA to match the individual requirements for SLABs with the 12. Technical Corrections to EPA’s shipment manifest to the consent for an Amended 2001 OECD Decision. (Note OECD Rule annual notice from a foreign exporter. that the exemption from the RCRA This final rule makes several hazardous waste manifest requirements technical corrections to EPA’s current G. Changes to 40 CFR 266.80(a) for exporters and transporters of SLABs OECD rule, including corrections to EPA is amending the table located at for reclamation will continue to remain capitalization, syntax, and punctuation 40 CFR 266.80 by including two in effect, although SLAB shipments for errors. In these changes, EPA is not additional rows to the current table. recovery to any of the OECD Member

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1245

countries listed in § 262.58(a)(1) must be • The RCRA waste code(s) (if by a movement document from the accompanied by a movement document applicable), United Nations number, initiation of the shipment until it per § 262.84 that is separate from the and OECD waste code for the hazardous reaches the final recovery facility. This RCRA hazardous waste manifest.) waste (SLABs are classified as Amber movement document is described in The table located at 40 CFR 266.80 waste A1160 under the Amended 2001 § 262.84 and is different from the RCRA describes the various kinds of SLAB OECD Decision); hazardous waste manifest. Exporters handlers and their respective legal • Planned mode(s) of transportation; may use the OECD Movement form in requirements. Some SLAB handlers may • Contact information for all intended Appendix 8 of the Amended 2001 OECD find that more than one description transporters; Decision, or whatever movement form • located in the table applies to their Contact information and the OECD may be required by the country of SLAB management activities. It is the recovery operation code(s) (e.g., R1– import, but are not required by EPA to SLAB handler’s responsibility to read R13) for both the importer and the final use any particular form. Exporters must all seven descriptions and carefully recovery facility (if different sites); provide the initial transporter with the • consider any and all requirements The requested period of movement document. Transporters are which may apply. exportation; prohibited from accepting a shipment of • A list of all transit countries, along 1. Export Shipments of SLABs to OECD SLABs without such a movement with the points of entry and departure, document, and are required to ensure Member Countries Listed in through which the hazardous waste will § 262.58(a)(1) that the movement document be sent; and accompanies the shipment from the • A certification by the exporter that Exporters and transporters of SLABs initiation of the shipment until it a contract or chain of contracts or destined for reclamation in any of the reaches the final recovery facility. The equivalent arrangements among all OECD Member countries listed in movement document must include all parties to the final shipment are in place § 262.58(a)(1) will have to comply with the information from the notification, as and are legally enforceable in all all applicable sections of 40 CFR part well as the following: 262, subpart H for wastes subject to the concerned countries. • Date movement commenced; Amber control procedures. For a If the notification is complete, EPA • Name (if not the exporter), address, complete listing of the final OECD will forward it to the importing country telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail requirements, exporters and transporters and any transit country(ies). Within of person originating the movement should consult the regulatory text for 40 three working days of receiving the document (Note that this person is CFR part 262, subpart H in this final notification, the importing country must equivalent to the primary exporter rule. In addition to the changes in send either an Acknowledgement of under 40 CFR part 262, subpart E); subpart H discussed in earlier sections, Receipt or a list of items that the • Company name and EPA ID number the applicable Amber control notification lacks directly to U.S. EPA, (if applicable) of all transporters; procedures include, but are not limited to the exporter, and to any countries of • Identification (license, registered to, the following: transit. The countries of import and name or registration number) of means transit have thirty (30) days from the of transport, including types of (a) Notification of Intent To Export date on the Acknowledgement of packaging envisaged; Exporters of SLABs destined for Receipt (seven days for shipments going • Any special precautions to be taken reclamation are required to comply with to pre-approved facilities) to object or by transporter(s) during transportation; the Amber control procedures in consent explicitly to the proposed • Certification/declaration signed by § 262.83. Under the Amber control shipment. Any explicit objection or the exporter that no objection to the procedures, an exporter must submit a consent by the country of import or shipment has been lodged; and complete notification to EPA of its transit will be sent simultaneously to • Appropriate signatures for each intent to export at least 45 days before U.S. EPA, the exporter, and any other custody transfer (e.g., transporter, the export is scheduled to leave the interested country (e.g., of import or importer, and owner or operator of the United States (or at least ten days if the transit). If no objections are submitted recovery facility). shipment is going to a pre-approved within the thirty day (30) period (seven (c) Annual Reporting facility in the country of import). The days for shipments going to pre- notification can cover export activities approved facilities), under the Under § 262.87(a), any person spanning a period of up to and provisions of the Amended 2001 OECD exporting SLABs who meets the including 12 months (or up to three Decision, tacit (or implied) consent is definition of primary exporter in years, depending on the procedures of assumed and the movement of the § 262.51 or who initiates the movement the importing country, if the shipment hazardous wastes may commence. document under § 262.84 will have to is going to a pre-approved facility in the The subsequent SLAB shipments submit to the International Compliance country of import). Exporters may use must be in accordance with the and Assurance Division in the Office of the OECD Notification form in information from the notification that Enforcement and Compliance Appendix 8 of the Amended 2001 OECD was reviewed and approved by the Assurance’s Office of Federal Activities Decision, or whatever notification form receiving country in its consent. Any in Washington, DC, an annual report may be required by the country of changes to the information listed in the summarizing the types, quantities, import, but are not required by EPA to notification, such as changes to frequency, and ultimate destination of do so. proposed total amounts to be exported all SLABs exported during the previous A complete notification includes, but or the ports of entry to be used, would calendar year. Reports are due by March is not limited to: require renotification and shipments 1st of every year. • Contact information and the EPA ID could not take place until either tacit or (d) Exception Reporting number (if applicable) for the exporter; written consent was obtained. • Point of departure from country of Under § 262.87(b), any person export; (b) Shipment Tracking exporting SLABs who meets the • A waste description and quantity of Under § 262.84, shipments of SLABs definition of primary exporter in the hazardous waste being exported; that are exported must be accompanied § 262.51 or who initiates the movement

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

document under § 262.84 must file an States. The notification can cover export transporter transporting the shipment exception report with the International activities spanning a period of up to and for export. Transporters are prohibited Compliance and Assurance Division in including 12 months. This complete from accepting a SLAB export shipment the Office of Enforcement and notification contains: if the transporter knows the shipment Compliance Assurance’s Office of • Contact information and the EPA ID does not conform to the EPA Federal Activities in Washington, DC, if number (if applicable) for the primary Acknowledgment of Consent. In either of the following occurs: exporter; addition, the transporter must ensure • Within ninety (90) days from the • A description and quantity of the that: date the SLAB shipment was accepted SLABs to be exported; • • A copy of the EPA by the initial transporter, the exporter The RCRA waste code(s) (if Acknowledgment of Consent has not received written confirmation applicable), U.S. DOT proper shipping accompanies the SLAB export from the recovery facility that the SLAB name, hazard class, and United Nations shipment; and shipment was received; or number as identified in 49 CFR parts • • The SLAB shipment is returned to 171 through 177; The SLAB export shipment is the United States. • Planned mode(s) of transportation delivered to the facility designated by and type(s) of containers; the person initiating the shipment. (e) Recordkeeping • A description of the manner in Unlike SLAB export shipments to Under § 262.87(c), any person which the SLABs will be treated, stored, countries listed in § 262.58(a)(1) that exporting SLABs who meets the or disposed of (including recovery) in must comply with 40 CFR part 262, definition of primary exporter in the receiving country; subpart H, SLAB export shipments § 262.51 or who initiates the movement • The planned frequency and time destined for countries not listed in document under § 262.84 must keep the period of exportation; § 252.58(a)(1) do not have any shipment following records: • A list of all transit countries tracking documentation requirements or • A copy of each notification of intent through which the SLABs will be sent, exception reporting requirements to export and all written consents and a description of the approximate because they are exempt from the RCRA obtained from the competent authorities length of time the hazardous waste will hazardous waste manifest requirements of countries concerned (e.g., export, remain in each country and the nature and are not required to comply with the transit, and import) for a period of at of its handling while there; movement document requirements in least three (3) years from the date the • All points of entry to and departure § 262.84. from each foreign country through SLAB shipment was accepted by the (c) Annual Reporting initial transporter; which the SLABs will pass; and • A copy of each annual report for a • The name and site address of the Exporters of SLABs must follow the period of at least three (3) years from the consignee 7 and any alternate consignee. requirements applicable to a primary due date of the report; If after proper notification, the exporter detailed in § 262.56 ‘‘Annual • A copy of any exception reports and receiving country consents to the receipt reports’’ (a)(1) through (4), (6), and (b). a copy of each confirmation of delivery of the hazardous waste, EPA will Specifically, exporters will have to file (i.e., movement document) sent by the forward an EPA Acknowledgment of with the EPA Administrator an annual recovery facility to the exporter for at Consent to the exporter. If, on the other report summarizing the types, least three (3) years from the date the hand, the receiving country objects to quantities, frequency, and ultimate SLAB shipment was accepted by the the receipt of the hazardous waste or destination of all SLABs exported initial transporter or received by the withdraws a prior consent, EPA will during the previous calendar year. recovery facility, whichever is notify the exporter in writing. EPA will Reports are due by March 1st of every applicable; and also notify the exporter of any responses year. • A copy of each confirmation of from transit countries. recovery sent by the recovery facility to The subsequent SLAB shipments (d) Recordkeeping the exporter for at least three (3) years must be in accordance with the Under § 262.57, exporters of SLABs from the date that the recovery facility information from the notification that must keep the following records: was reviewed and approved by the completed the processing of the SLAB • shipment. receiving country in its consent. Any A copy of each notification of intent changes to the information listed in the to export for at least three years from the 2. Export Shipments of SLABs to notification (with the exception of date the SLAB export shipment was Countries Not Listed in § 262.58(a)(1) changes to the primary exporter’s accepted by the initial transporter; (a) Notification of Intent To Export telephone number, the listed means of • A copy of each EPA Exporters of SLABs destined for transportation, or a decrease in the total Acknowledgment of Consent for at least reclamation in countries not listed in amount to be exported) would require three years from the date the SLAB § 262.58(a)(1), such as Canada or renotification and shipments could not export shipment was accepted by the Mexico, are required to comply with the take place until the exporter received an initial transporter; and primary exporter notification EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for • A copy of each annual report for at requirements in § 262.53, and may the renotification. least three years from the due date of the export the SLABs only upon consent of (b) Shipment Documentation and report. the receiving country and in Tracking H. Changes to 40 CFR 271.1 conformance with the EPA Exporters of SLABs must provide a Acknowledgement of Consent, as This final rule amends Table 1 and copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of defined in 40 CFR part 262, subpart E. Table 2 of § 271.1 by adding references Consent for the SLAB shipment to the Specifically, the exporter has to submit to the revisions which amend 40 CFR a complete notification of its intent to 7 As noted previously, this is equivalent to the part 262, subpart E to reflect that export to EPA at least 60 days before the ‘‘importer’’ in the final revisions to 40 CFR part 262, subpart E implements the Hazardous export is scheduled to leave the United subpart H. and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1247

IV. Discussion of Comments Received countries for any reason. ABR similarly waste to a non-OECD country. The in Response to the Proposed commented that EPA should prohibit all online information will list the exporter Rulemaking and the Agency’s exports of SLABs to non-OECD name, exporter address, waste text Responses countries. EPA cannot grant this request description, proposed receiving country, The Agency received comments from since the statute does not give EPA the and consent status (e.g., notice four entities: the Basel Action Network legal authority to implement an outright submitted to foreign country, whether (BAN), a nongovernmental organization ban on hazardous waste exports. the foreign country consents or objects). focused on the Basel Convention and in Specifically, RCRA section 3017 Moreover, EPA’s cover letters for notices particular on the issue of illegal trade in prohibits exports of hazardous waste concerning exports to non-OECD hazardous wastes to developing unless either: (1) The shipments are countries will remind the countries, countries; the Association of Battery covered under and conform to the terms when appropriate, of the relevant Basel Recyclers (ABR), a national trade specified in an agreement between the hazardous waste listing and the Basel association representing the lead U.S. and the receiving country; or (2) Convention prohibition on recycling industry; Johnson Controls, the exporter has submitted written transboundary shipments of hazardous Inc. (JCI), a global supplier of batteries notification to EPA, obtained written waste between Basel Parties and a non- to the automotive aftermarket and consent from the receiving country via Party like the United States. In another comment, BAN asserted original equipment manufacturers; and EPA, attached a copy of the written that EPA has not yet implemented the Dow Chemical Company (DOW), a consent to the RCRA hazardous waste 1986 OECD Council Decision- global chemical manufacturer. The manifest for each shipment, and ensures Recommendation C(86)64(final) 8 (‘‘1986 comments were focused on specific that the shipments comply with the OECD Decision-Recommendation’’), and issues or provisions in the proposed terms of the receiving country’s consent. should do so immediately. This rule. To the extent that comments were Moreover, section 3017 directs the State comment is outside the scope of this not submitted on various aspects or Department, on behalf of EPA, to rulemaking, as EPA proposed revisions provisions of the proposal, the Agency forward a copy of the notification to the to the OECD provisions to implement is finalizing those portions of the intended country of import within 30 the Amended 2001 OECD Decision. proposal, as-is, except in one case. That days of EPA receiving a complete Finally, BAN suggested that the U.S. exception is discussed in section C notification concerning a proposed should simultaneously ratify the Basel below. waste export that would not be covered under the terms of an existing Convention and the Basel Ban A. OECD Revisions international agreement. Therefore, an Amendment. However, ratification of BAN argued that EPA should subject outright ban regarding all exports of any the Basel Convention, with or without all wastes on the OECD amber list to individual hazardous waste (e.g. SLABs) the Basel Ban Amendment, would amber control procedures when being or all hazardous wastes to non-OECD require Congressional action to provide exported regardless of whether the countries would require changes to the EPA the legislative authority to materials are RCRA hazardous wastes. statutory language and is outside the implement either of these, and thus, is This comment is outside the scope of scope of this regulatory action. outside the scope of this rulemaking. Dow stated that it supported EPA this rulemaking, as EPA did not propose In practice, EPA has rarely received revising the existing regulations to any changes to the fundamental inquiries for hazardous waste exports to implement the Amended 2001 OECD regulatory framework regarding the non-OECD countries. When approached Decision, and that the revisions will applicability of the OECD provisions in by potential exporters who ask about clarify and streamline the import and 40 CFR part 262, subpart H (see Section exporting hazardous wastes to non- export process among OECD Member II.A.5 of the proposed rule at 73 FR OECD countries that are, however, countries. 58393). Moreover, it is important to parties to the Basel Convention, it is recognize that the Amended 2001 OECD EPA’s practice to actively discourage B. SLAB Revisions Decision and its predecessor have long such exports by informing them of the Three of the commenters recognized recognized and allowed a Member Basel Convention prohibition on the need to require notification and country to determine if a waste on an transboundary shipments of hazardous consent for SLABs being exported for OECD list is hazardous based on its waste between Basel Parties and a non- reclamation in a foreign country, and all ‘‘national procedures’’ (see Annex I, Party like the United States in the four commenters supported EPA Section II.4 of the ‘‘Decision of the absence of a formal agreement per establishing the notice and consent Council C(92)39/FINAL Concerning the Article 11 of the Basel Convention (e.g., export requirements. Control of Transfrontier Movements of the U.S.-Canada bilateral agreement, the As part of ABR’s comment suggesting Wastes Destined for Recovery’’ and U.S.-Mexico bilateral agreement, or the that EPA ban all exports of SLABs to Chapter II, Section B.4 of the Amended OECD multilateral agreement). The non-OECD countries (which is 2001 Decision). Discussion on how United States has no agreement with a discussed in the previous section), ABR RCRA implementation of ‘‘national non-OECD country for exports of RCRA submitted data that analyzed export procedures’’ impacts transboundary hazardous wastes. A review of shipments of SLABs and other lead movements of wastes subject to the hazardous waste export notices between scrap based on the harmonized tariff RCRA exemptions, exclusions and 1995–2007 indicates no approved or code classifications between 2006–2008. recycling provisions can be found in the even proposed exports of RCRA The data indicated shipments of lead April 12, 1996, preamble to the original hazardous waste to a non-OECD scrap and/or SLABs to non-OECD OECD rule (61 FR 16290–16316). EPA is country. In the interest of transparency, therefore finalizing the scope of the however, EPA intends to post online at 8 ‘‘Decision-Recommendation of the Council on OECD provisions in subpart H, as http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/ Exports of Hazardous Wastes from the OECD area,’’ proposed. international/hazard/index.htm issued June 5, 1986. This document is available online at http://webdomino1.oecd.org/horizontal/ BAN also commented that EPA summary information for all future oecdacts.nsf/linkto/C(86)64, and a copy has been should prohibit all exports of OECD notices we receive concerning a placed in the docket established for this amber listed wastes to non-OECD proposed export of RCRA hazardous rulemaking.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

countries (e.g., China and India). ABR previously established references to 40 competent authority of the exporting asserted that this data demonstrates that CFR parts 261 and 268. EPA is therefore country, the proposal stated that EPA many exporters were mislabeling their finalizing the 40 CFR part 266, subpart would need to provide or otherwise SLAB shipments as non-battery scrap, G requirements as proposed. make available to U.S. importers the and that EPA might be underestimating JCI commented that a three-year time documentation confirming the Agency’s the amount of SLABs that were exported period for notice and consent of exports consent. We asked for comment in the for reclamation between 2006–2008. (as opposed to a one-year time period) proposed rule on how best to provide However, after reviewing the analysis would reduce the burden on U.S. the consent documentation to the RCRA conducted by ABR, who generally exporters while still providing sufficient importer, but received no comments on supports the proposed rule, we do not notification to the importing country of this issue. Foreign notices we receive believe that ABR’s data would lead to a proposed shipments. While the regarding proposed imports of significantly different answer, and cause Amended 2001 OECD Decision does hazardous waste do not generally EPA to reconsider its position. In allow importing countries to issue identify the party acting as the importer particular, ABR’s data indicated total extended consents that last for up to under the RCRA regulations, but the exports of SLABs and lead scrap were three years when the proposed notices always have to list the foreign approximately 220,000 metric tons in shipment is destined for a facility that generator, the waste to be imported, the 2006 and approximately 250,000 metric the importing country has ‘‘pre- intended management of the waste, and tons in 2007, with about 8% of the total approved’’ for such imports, OECD the U.S. TSDF that will dispose of or exports in 2006 going to non-OECD countries are neither required to pre- recover the imported hazardous waste. countries. In comparison, EPA’s data on approve facilities nor to issue such Since we should be able to reliably SLAB exports estimated that 269,171 extended consents. The international identify the TSDF, and the TSDF should metric tons were exported in 2006, and agreements covering exports from the have enough knowledge of their that 1.77% went to non-OECD United States that are in place with individual customers and contracts to countries. Because the maximum annual Canada, Mexico, and the OECD all match up the incoming shipment amount of SLABs exported between specify a one-year time period as the manifests with the EPA-provided import 2006–2007 based on ABR’s data is less standard maximum length of time that consent documentation, we have than the annual amount based on EPA’s a notification and consent can cover. decided to provide the import consent data, the Agency believes it most Consistent with those agreements and documentation directly to the TSDF appropriate that the data used in the with all other RCRA export regulatory listed on each consent document and economic analysis for the proposed rule requirements in 40 CFR parts 261, 262 require each TSDF receiving hazardous should continue to be used, and not and 273, EPA is therefore retaining the waste from a foreign source to send back revised to include the ABR data in the one-year time period for SLABs being a copy of the relevant import consent economic analysis for the final rule. As exported under 40 CFR part 266, documentation along with a signed copy a general note, if anyone has specific subpart G. of the RCRA hazardous waste manifest knowledge pertaining to specific export Dow made a general comment of within 30 days of delivery. Because shipments that they believe are in support for the revisions to the SLAB receiving facilities would have received violation of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. the consent documentation directly regulations, we encourage them to C. Export Exception Report Technical under the proposal for those instances submit it using EPA’s Web site at http:// Correction and Import Revisions when they were acting as the RCRA www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/ importer of record, making this change BAN and Dow both made a general index.html. is a logical outgrowth of the proposal comment of support for the proposed ABR further commented that adding and does not require a supplemental technical corrections regarding export notice. export requirements to 40 CFR part 266, exception reports and import consent subpart G that reference the 40 CFR part documentation submissions, as V. Future Rulemaking 262 requirements was confusing, and proposed. Therefore, EPA is finalizing instead recommended that EPA simply 1. Changes to OECD Member Country the technical corrections as proposed. List require that all SLABs destined for The final rule however, does not export to be managed as Universal include the proposed requirement in 40 Qualified countries may be invited to Waste batteries under 40 CFR part 273. CFR part 262, subpart F that RCRA accede to the OECD Convention as new EPA does not agree that requiring all hazardous waste importers give a copy Members. The OECD Convention SLABs that will be exported in the of the EPA-provided import consent defines qualified countries as those that future be managed under 40 CFR part documentation to the initial transporter have demonstrated the basic values 273 would be easier or less confusing. along with the RCRA hazardous waste shared by all Members: An open market EPA’s policy has long allowed collectors manifest. economy, democratic pluralism, and and managers of SLABs destined for According to longstanding EPA respect for human rights. Any decision recycling to choose either Part 273 or policy, any party who helped arrange to invite a new country to become a Part 266 (see Section IV.B.2.b of the for the importation (e.g., a broker, a Member of the OECD must be 1995 Final Universal Waste Rule at 60 transporter, or the waste management unanimous, although abstentions may FR 25504 and following pages). We facility), may be considered an be allowed. Thus, no new Member may believe that having the same export importer.9 Because EPA’s consents are be admitted over the objection of the requirements for SLAB exports in 40 currently communicated only to the United States (or any other Member CFR part 273 and 40 CFR part 266, country). subpart G is the most straightforward 9 See June 25, 1985, memo from John H. Skinner, In order to accommodate changes in approach to ensuring that SLAB exports Director of the Office of Solid Waste to Harry OECD membership as quickly as for reclamation are appropriately Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste possible, EPA will publish in the Management Division, EPA Region IX, controlled, and the references to ‘‘Determining Who Assumes Generator Federal Register any future requirements in 40 CFR part 262 should Responsibilities for Importations of Hazardous amendments to the list of OECD be no more confusing than the Waste.’’ Member countries set forth in

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1249

§ 262.58(a)(1), as a final rule without countries. In addition, we assess the C. Cost Impacts prior notice and opportunity for newly final export regulations for comment. EPA believes that the Agency SLABs to OECD and non-OECD The total incremental cost for the would be able to make a ‘‘good cause’’ countries. Also incorporated into the OECD portion of the final rule during finding under the Administrative analysis is the requirement that a the first year of implementation, Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. receiving facility subject to 40 CFR parts including reading the rule, is estimated 553(b)(3)(B) to make these future 264 or 265 submit to EPA a copy of the to be $14,494. This is a net impact amendments without prior notice and documentation confirming EPA’s estimate that includes a total net comment. EPA believes notice and an consent to the import when it submits incremental cost increase to the opportunity for comment on future to EPA the RCRA hazardous waste regulated community of $13,656, and a amendments to § 262.58(a)(1) to reflect manifest for the import shipment of total net cost increase to EPA of $838. the updates to the OECD list of Member hazardous waste. Finally, this action The total incremental annual net cost countries would be unnecessary, revises the current language in §§ 262.55 for the OECD portion after the first year because the United States, as an OECD and 262.87(b) to require exception of implementation, excluding reading Member country, is legally obligated to reports to be submitted directly to the the rule, is estimated to be $9,700. implement OECD Decisions with International Compliance and The total incremental cost for the respect to all OECD Member countries. Assurance Division in the Office of SLAB portion of the final rule during Enforcement and Compliance the first year of implementation, 2. Changes to OECD Waste List Assurance’s Office of Federal Activities including reading the rule, is estimated The OECD waste list is incorporated in Washington, DC, rather than to the at $850,000. The first year total by reference and cited in § 262.89(d). If EPA Administrator. There is no incremental cost is expected to be about the OECD amends its waste list in the discernable cost impact associated with $780,000 for the affected U.S. industry future by decision of the OECD Council this final requirement for exception and about $71,000 for EPA. The total (with the concurrence of the United reports to be submitted directly to the incremental annual cost after the first States), EPA will publish a notice of Director. year of implementation, excluding these amendments in the Federal First, we assessed potential cost reading the rule, is estimated to be Register as a final rule without prior impacts (positive and negative) of the $400,000. notice and an opportunity for comment. final revisions to the OECD rule, The combined total cost of the final EPA believes that the Agency would be including: rule (OECD portion, plus SLAB portion, able to make a ‘‘good cause’’ finding • Exemptions for wastes destined for plus import consent documentation under the Administrative Procedure Act laboratory analyses, portion) is estimated at $910,000 for the (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make • The requirement to provide a first year. Approximately 93% of this these future amendments without prior certificate of recovery, total is attributable to the SLAB portion • notice and comment because the Information collection requirements of the rule, followed by the EPA import purpose of § 262.89(d) is solely associated with the exchange and consent documentation requirements informational—to provide an up-to-date accumulation recovery operations, and representing about 5% of the total. The • reference of the OECD waste list. Public The notification requirements OECD portion accounts for less than 2% comment on such updates is related to the return of wastes. of the total first year cost of the rule. unnecessary, as EPA would have no Next, we assessed potential cost After the first year, the total incremental discretion to modify this list. impacts (positive and negative) of the cost of the final rulemaking is estimated final revisions to the SLAB regulations, at $460,000. VI. Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule including: • Cost estimates presented in this A. Introduction Notification requirements for SLAB exporters, section are based on our estimates for The value of any regulatory action is • The renotification requirements the number of potentially affected traditionally measured by the net associated with any changes to the importers, exporters, and transporters. change in social welfare that it original SLAB export notification, Numerous data sources were used in the generates. The Agency’s economic • The annual reporting requirements, derivation of these estimates, including: assessment conducted in support of this • Additional reporting requirements RCRAInfo, the Waste International final action evaluates costs, cost savings, (if requested by EPA), and Tracking System (WITS), industry benefits, and other impacts, such as • SLAB exporter recordkeeping consultations, the Biennial Report, the environmental justice, children’s health, requirements. International Trade Commission (ITC), unfunded mandates, regulatory takings, Finally, we analyzed the final Environment Canada, and and small entity impacts. To conduct requirements that a receiving facility SEMARNAT 10 data. A full explanation this analysis, we developed and subject to 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 of the data sources, analytical implemented a methodology for submit to EPA a copy of the methodology, assumptions, and examining the impacts, and followed documentation confirming EPA’s limitations associated with the findings appropriate guidelines and procedures consent to the import when it submits presented above is presented in our Cost for examining equity considerations, to EPA the RCRA hazardous waste Assessment 11 document prepared in children’s health, and other impacts. manifest for the import shipment of support of this final action. This hazardous waste. document is available in the docket to B. Analytical Scope We also included an estimate for today’s rule. This analysis assesses the final potentially affected entities to read the integration of the Amended 2001 OECD regulation, which is, by default, a 10 Secretarı´a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Decision into the existing U.S. necessary requirement for Naturales (SEMARNAT). regulations governing shipments understanding the regulation. Cost 11 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for (export/import/transit) of hazardous impacts associated with reading the Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent wastes destined for recovery between regulation are assessed for exporters, Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import the U.S. and other OECD Member importers, and transporters. Consent Documentation.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

D. Benefits prohibitions imposed under HSWA standards for spent lead-acid batteries We have prepared a qualitative authority take effect in authorized States analogous to 40 CFR part 266, subpart assessment of the benefits anticipated at the same time that they take effect in G must adopt the changes in today’s from this action. Overall, this action is unauthorized States. EPA is directed by rule which are more stringent. expected to result in improved the statute to implement these States are not required to adopt the regulatory efficiency of the affected requirements and prohibitions in amendments in this rule that are not materials, while ensuring improved data authorized States, including the more stringent. However, EPA strongly collection and enhanced enforcement issuance of permits, until the State is encourages States to incorporate all the capabilities. Specific benefits include granted authorization to do so. While import and export related requirements the following: States must still adopt more stringent into their regulations for the • Increasing regulatory efficiency by HSWA related provisions as State law to convenience of the regulated implementing provisions in the retain final authorization, EPA community and for completeness, Amended 2001 OECD Decision that implements the HSWA provisions in particularly where a State has already were meant to clarify the scope of authorized States until the States do so. incorporated 40 CFR part 262, subparts Authorized States are required to control and make the control procedures E, and H, the import/export manifest modify their programs only when EPA more precise; and OECD movement document related • Helping to improve market enacts Federal requirements that are requirements in § 263.10(d), the import efficiency by allowing exporters to ship more stringent than existing Federal manifest and OECD movement wastes more quickly and store for requirements. RCRA section 3009 document submittal requirements in allows the States to impose standards shorter periods of time; §§ 264.12(a)(2), 264.71, 265.12(a)(2), and more stringent than those in the Federal • Encouraging the environmentally 265.71, or the management provisions program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). sound recovery of hazardous wastes, for SLABs in 40 CFR part 266, subpart Therefore, authorized States may, but thereby reducing the risks associated G. When a State adopts the import/ are not required to, adopt Federal with treatment and disposal; and export provisions in this final rule, care regulations, both HSWA and non- • Providing for the improved ability should be taken not to replace Federal HSWA, that are considered less to acquire information regarding the or international references with State stringent than previous Federal quantities of SLABs exported from the terms. regulations. U.S. and the destination facilities to The provisions of today’s notice take which the SLABs are exported. B. Effect on State Authorization effect in all States on July 7, 2010, since VII. State Authorization Because of the Federal government’s these import and export requirements special role in matters of foreign policy, will be administered by the Federal A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized EPA does not authorize States to government as a foreign policy matter, States administer Federal import/export and will not be administered by States. Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA functions in any section of the RCRA VIII. Statutory and Executive Order may authorize qualified States to hazardous waste regulations. This Reviews administer their own hazardous waste promotes national coordination, programs in lieu of the Federal program uniformity and the expeditious A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory within the State. Following transmission of information between the Planning and Review authorization, EPA retains enforcement United States and foreign countries. authority under sections 3008, 3013, Although States do not receive Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized authorization to administer the Federal (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this States have primary enforcement government’s export functions in 40 action is a ‘‘significant regulatory responsibility. The standards and CFR part 262, subpart E, import action.’’ This action may raise novel requirements for State authorization are functions in 40 CFR part 262, subpart F, legal or policy issues [3(f)(4)] arising out found at 40 CFR part 271. import/export functions in 40 CFR part of legal mandates, although it is not Prior to enactment of the Hazardous 262, subpart H, or the import/export economically significant. Accordingly, and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 related functions in any other section of EPA submitted this action to the Office (HSWA), a State with final RCRA the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, of Management and Budget (OMB) for authorization administered its State programs are still required to review under EO 12866. Any changes hazardous waste program entirely in adopt those provisions in today’s rule made in response to OMB’s lieu of EPA administering the Federal that are more stringent than existing recommendations have been program in that State. The Federal Federal requirements to maintain their documented in the docket for this requirements no longer applied in the equivalency with the Federal program action. authorized State, and EPA could not (see for example, 40 CFR 271.10(e)). This final rule is projected to result in issue permits for any facilities in that Today’s rule contains many a net increase in costs to certain State, since only the State was amendments to 40 CFR part 262, importers, exporters, and transporters of authorized to issue RCRA permits. subpart H, a number of which are more affected hazardous wastes. Increased When new, more stringent Federal stringent. The rule also contains costs are also projected for the Federal requirements were promulgated, the amendments to § 262.10, § 262.55, government. The total net cost of this State was obligated to enact equivalent § 262.58, § 263.10(d), § 264.12(a)(2), rule is estimated to be $910,000 during authorities within specified time frames. § 264.71, § 265.12(a)(2), and § 265.71, the first year following rule However, the new Federal requirements almost all of which are more stringent. implementation. Exporters are projected did not take effect in an authorized State The States that have adopted 40 CFR to account for approximately 69 percent until the State adopted the Federal part 262, subparts E and H, 40 CFR part of this total. Benefits of this action requirements as State law. 263, 40 CFR part 264 or 40 CFR part 265 include increased regulatory efficiency, In contrast, under RCRA section must adopt the provisions listed above reduced risks associated with the 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was that are more stringent. In addition, treatment and disposal of hazardous added by HSWA, new requirements and States that have adopted management wastes, and improved data collection.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1251

The total net cost estimate for this listed in § 262.58(a)(1) (e.g., submitting control number for the approved rule is significantly below the $100 notices, originating a movement information collection requirements million threshold 12 established under document for each shipment, keeping contained in this final rule. part 3(f)(1) of the Order. Thus, this rule records of all confirmations of receipt C. Regulatory Flexibility Act is not considered to be an economically and recovery they receive, submitting significant action. However, in an effort exception reports and annual reports, The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to comply with the spirit of the Order, and recordkeeping); and comply with generally requires an agency to prepare we have prepared an economic portions of the subpart E requirements a regulatory flexibility analysis of any assessment 13 in support of this final if going elsewhere (e.g., submitting rule subject to notice and comment rule. The RCRA docket established for notices, providing a copy of EPA’s rulemaking requirements under the today’s rulemaking contains a copy of Acknowledgement of Consent for each Administrative Procedure Act or any this document. shipment, submitting annual reports other statute unless the agency certifies and recordkeeping). that the rule will not have a significant B. Paperwork Reduction Act • Under the final import economic impact on a substantial The information collection documentation revisions: U.S. receiving number of small entities. Small entities requirements in this rule have been facilities will have to submit to EPA include small businesses, small submitted for approval to the Office of copies of the documentation confirming organizations, and small governmental Management and Budget (OMB) under EPA’s consent to the import each time jurisdictions. the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. they submit to EPA a copy of the RCRA For purposes of assessing the impacts 3501 et seq. The information collection hazardous waste manifest for each of today’s rule on small entities, small requirements are not enforceable until hazardous waste import shipment entity is defined as: (1) A small business OMB approves them. The Information within thirty (30) days of shipment as defined by the Small Business Collection Request (ICR) document delivery. Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA All affected sources will have to CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental ICR number 2308.02. retain records of this paperwork for a jurisdiction that is a government of a The final rule requires that the period of three (3) years, which is city, county, town, school district or affected sources submit the following: consistent with the RCRA hazardous special district with a population of less • Under the final OECD revisions: waste requirements of §§ 262.53, 262.56, than 50,000; and (3) a small U.S. recovery facilities will have to 262.57, 262.83, 262.87, 264.71 and organization that is any not-for-profit submit a certificate of recovery to the 265.71. The collection of the requested enterprise which is independently foreign exporter, and to the competent information is mandatory, as it is owned and operated and is not authority of the country of export and needed by EPA as a part of its overall dominant in its field. EPA, as soon as possible, but no later compliance and enforcement program After considering the economic than thirty (30) days after the for the protection of human health and impacts of today’s final rule on small completion of recovery and no later the environment. entities, I certify that this action will not than one (1) calendar year following The estimated annual public reporting have a significant economic impact on receipt of the waste; U.S. facilities that burden for the new paperwork a substantial number of small entities. exchange or accumulate waste requirements in the final rule is 4.63 We have determined that a substantial shipments (e.g., R12/R13 facilities) hours/year per respondent under the number of potentially affected small before final recovery at another facility final OECD revisions; 20.74 hours/year businesses (importers, exporters, and (e.g., R1–R11 facilities) will have to per respondent under the final SLAB transporters) will not experience prepare and provide a certificate of revisions; and 8.44 hours/year per significant negative economic impacts. recovery for the R12/R13 recovery respondent under the final import For the purpose of our impact analyses, operations, and provide and maintain a consent documentation. The annual small business is defined either by the copy of the certificate of recovery for the public recordkeeping burden is number of employees or by the dollar subsequent R1–R11 recovery operations; estimated to average 10.20 hours/year amount of sales. The level at which a U.S. recovery facilities, including R12/ per respondent under the final OECD business is considered small is R13 facilities, that must re-export or revisions, and 0.25 hours/year per determined for each North American otherwise return the hazardous waste respondent under the final SLAB Industrial Classification System shipment will have to submit new revisions. The total annual public (NAICS) code by the Small Business notification documents and comply burden is estimated to be 14,854 hours Administration. No small governmental with the associated Amber control at a cost of $832,400 during the first jurisdiction or small not-for-profit procedures; and U.S. exporters will year of implementation, and 8,799 hours organizations are expected to be affected have to keep records of the additional at a cost of $381,400 after the first year. by this action. certifications of recovery and any R12/ The capital and start-up costs plus total While a significant number of R13 certifications they receive from operation and maintenance costs are exporters may be small businesses, the recovery facilities in other OECD expected to be negligible. Burden is results of our analysis indicate that the Member countries. defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). cost to individual small entities in each • Under the final SLAB revisions: An agency may not conduct or potentially affected sector (as identified SLAB exporters will have to comply sponsor, and a person is not required to by NAICS codes) is likely to be with the full subpart H requirements if respond to, a collection of information insignificant. This determination was going to the OECD Member countries unless it displays a currently valid OMB made by comparing annual compliance control number. The OMB control costs under the rule to the average 12 This $100 million threshold applies to both numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 annual sales of small business in the costs, and cost savings. CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When industry sectors likely affected by the 13 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports this ICR is approved by OMB, the rule. According to the U.S. Small and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Agency will publish a technical Business Administration’s small Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the business size standards, firms in most of Consent Documentation (Cost Assessment). Federal Register to display the OMB these industry sectors are classified as a

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘small business’’ if they have fewer than F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation not to use available and applicable 750 employees. For purposes of this and Coordination With Indian Tribal voluntary consensus standards. analysis, the Agency examined a subset Governments This final rulemaking does not of small entities expected to face the This final rule does not have Tribal involve technical standards. Therefore, largest relative impacts as measured by implications, as specified in Executive EPA did not consider the use of any cost to sales ratios. The average annual Order 13175. No Tribal governments are voluntary consensus standards. gross sales of the potentially impacted known to own or operate businesses J. Executive Order 12898: Federal small companies within this subset with that may be affected by this rule. Thus, Actions To Address Environmental fewer than 20 employees were found to Executive Order 13175 does not apply Justice in Minority Populations and range from $0.4 million to $4.1 million, to this final rule. Low-Income Populations depending upon the NAICS sector. The annual compliance costs for these G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal companies, as a percentage of average Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks executive policy on environmental annual gross sales, was found to range justice. Its main provision directs from 0.01 percent to 0.08 percent. The This action is not subject to EO 13045 Federal agencies, to the greatest extent (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because regulatory flexibility screening analysis practicable and permitted by law, to it is not economically significant as prepared in support of this make environmental justice part of their defined in Executive Order 12866, and determination is incorporated into the mission by identifying and addressing, because the Agency does not believe the Cost Assessment, which is available in as appropriate, disproportionately high environmental health or safety risks the docket established for this rule. and adverse human health or addressed by this action present a environmental effects of their programs, D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of disproportionate risk to children policies, and activities on minority 1995 residing in the United States. This rule populations and low-income is intended to improve regulatory This action contains no Federal populations in the United States. efficiency, enhance waste tracking EPA has determined that this final mandates under the provisions of Title procedures, and increase accountability rule will not have disproportionately II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform among all parties associated with high and/or adverse human health or Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– international shipments, and does not environmental effects on minority or 1538 for State, local, or Tribal directly affect the level of protection low-income populations because it does governments or the private sector. provided to human health or the not directly affect the level of protection UMRA does not apply to rules that are environment in the United States. necessary for the national security or the provided to human health or the ratification or implementation of H. Executive Order 13211: Actions environment in the United States. This international treaty obligations (e.g., the Concerning Regulations That rule is intended to improve regulatory Amended 2001 OECD Decision, the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, efficiency, enhance waste tracking U.S.-Canada bilateral waste agreement). Distribution, or Use procedures, and increase accountability Therefore, this action is not subject to This action is not subject to Executive among all parties associated with the requirements of sections 202 or 205 Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, international shipments. of the UMRA. Finally, this action is also 2001)) because it is not a significant K. Congressional Review Act regulatory action under Executive Order not subject to the requirements of The Congressional Review Act, 5 12866. This rule will not seriously section 203 of UMRA because it U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small disrupt energy supply, distribution contains no regulatory requirements that Business Regulatory Enforcement patterns, prices, imports or exports. In might significantly or uniquely affect Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides fact, this rule is designed to improve small governments. As explained that before a rule may take effect, the regulatory efficiency and improve previously, EPA does not authorize agency promulgating the rule must information collection, in part by States to administer Federal import/ submit a rule report, which includes a implementing revisions and export functions in any section of the copy of the rule, to each House of the clarifications to the existing regulations. RCRA hazardous waste regulations Congress and to the Comptroller General because of the Federal government’s I. National Technology Transfer of the United States. EPA will submit a special role in matters of foreign policy. Advancement Act report containing this rule and other E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Section 12(d) of the National required information to the U.S. Senate, Technology Transfer and Advancement the U.S. House of Representatives, and This action does not have federalism Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law the Comptroller General of the United implications. It will not have substantial 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) States prior to publication of the rule in direct effects on the States, on the directs EPA to use voluntary consensus the Federal Register. A major rule relationship between the national standards in its regulatory activities cannot take effect until 60 days after it government and the States, or on the unless to do so would be inconsistent is published in the Federal Register. distribution of power and with applicable law or otherwise This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as responsibilities among the various impractical. Voluntary consensus defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule levels of government, as specified in standards are technical standards (e.g., will be effective July 7, 2010. Executive Order 13132. Specifically, materials specifications, test methods, List of Subjects this final rule does not have Federalism sampling procedures, and business implications because the State and local practices) that are developed or adopted 40 CFR Part 262 governments do not administer the by voluntary consensus standards Environmental protection, Exports, export and import requirements under bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to Hazardous materials transportation, RCRA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 provide Congress, through OMB, Hazardous waste, Imports, does not apply to this action. explanations when the Agency decides Incorporation by reference, International

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1253

organizations, Labeling, Packaging and management standards of 40 CFR part (2) For the purposes of subpart H of containers, Recycling, Reporting and 273, State requirements analogous to 40 this part, Canada and Mexico are recordkeeping requirements. CFR part 273, the export requirements considered OECD Member countries in the spent lead-acid battery only for the purpose of transit. 40 CFR Part 263 management standards of 40 CFR part (b) Any person who exports Environmental protection, Hazardous 266, subpart G, or State requirements hazardous waste to or imports materials transportation, Hazardous analogous to the export requirements in hazardous waste from: A designated waste, Imports. 40 CFR part 266, subpart G. OECD Member country for purposes other than recovery (e.g., incineration, 40 CFR Part 264 * * * * * disposal), Mexico (for any purpose), or Environmental protection, Hazardous 3. 262.55 is amended by revising the Canada (for any purpose) remains waste, Imports, Packaging and introductory text to read as follows: subject to the requirements of subparts containers, Reporting and recordkeeping § 262.55 Exception reports. E and F of this part, and is not subject requirements. to the requirements of subpart H of this In lieu of the requirements of part. 40 CFR Part 265 § 262.42, a primary exporter must file an 5. Subpart H is revised to read as exception report with the Office of Environmental protection, Hazardous follows: waste, Imports, Packaging and Enforcement and Compliance containers, Reporting and recordkeeping Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, Subpart H—Transboundary Movements of requirements. International Compliance Assurance Hazardous Waste for Recovery Within the Division (2254A), Environmental OECD 40 CFR Part 266 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Sec. Environmental protection, Exports, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, if 262.80 Applicability. Spent lead-acid batteries, Recycling, any of the following occurs: 262.81 Definitions. 262.82 General conditions. Waste treatment and disposal. * * * * * 262.83 Notification and consent. 40 CFR Part 271 4. Section 262.58 is revised to read as 262.84 Movement document. follows: 262.85 Contracts. Environmental protection, 262.86 Provisions relating to recognized Administrative practice and procedure, § 262.58 International agreements. traders. Hazardous materials transportation, 262.87 Reporting and recordkeeping. Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental (a) Any person who exports or 262.88 Pre-approval for U.S. recovery relations, Penalties, Reporting and imports wastes that are considered facilities [Reserved]. 262.89 OECD waste lists. recordkeeping requirements. hazardous under U.S. national procedures to or from designated Dated: December 23, 2009. Member countries of the Organization Subpart H—Transboundary Lisa P. Jackson, for Economic Cooperation and Movements of Hazardous Waste for Administrator. Development (OECD) as defined in Recovery Within the OECD For the reasons stated in the paragraph (a)(1) of this section for § 262.80 Applicability. preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code purposes of recovery is subject to (a) The requirements of this subpart of Federal Regulations is amended as subpart H of this part. The requirements apply to imports and exports of wastes follows. of subparts E and F of this part do not that are considered hazardous under apply to such exports and imports. A U.S. national procedures and are PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE waste is considered hazardous under destined for recovery operations in the TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS U.S. national procedures if the waste countries listed in § 262.58(a)(1). A WASTE meets the Federal definition of waste is considered hazardous under hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3 and is U.S. national procedures if the waste: 1. The authority citation for part 262 subject to either the Federal RCRA continues to read as follows: (1) Meets the Federal definition of manifesting requirements at 40 CFR part hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3; and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922– 262, subpart B, the universal waste (2) Is subject to either the Federal 6925, 6937, and 6938. management standards of 40 CFR part RCRA manifesting requirements at 40 2. Section 262.10(d) is amended by 273, State requirements analogous to 40 CFR part 262, subpart B, the universal revising paragraph (d) to read as CFR part 273, the export requirements waste management standards of 40 CFR follows: in the spent lead-acid battery part 273, State requirements analogous management standards of 40 CFR part to 40 CFR part 273, the export § 262.10 Purpose, scope, and applicability. 266, subpart G, or State requirements requirements in the spent lead-acid * * * * * analogous to the export requirements in battery management standards of 40 (d) Any person who exports or 40 CFR part 266, subpart G. CFR part 266, subpart G, or State imports wastes that are considered (1) For the purposes of subpart H, the requirements analogous to the export hazardous under U.S. national designated OECD Member countries requirements in 40 CFR part 266, procedures to or from the countries consist of Australia, Austria, Belgium, subpart G. listed in § 262.58(a)(1) for recovery must the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, (b) Any person (exporter, importer, or comply with subpart H of this part. A France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, recovery facility operator) who mixes waste is considered hazardous under Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, two or more wastes (including U.S. national procedures if the waste Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New hazardous and non-hazardous wastes) meets the Federal definition of Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the or otherwise subjects two or more hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3 and is Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, wastes (including hazardous and non- subject to either the Federal RCRA Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, hazardous wastes) to physical or manifesting requirements at 40 CFR part the United Kingdom, and the United chemical transformation operations, and 262, subpart B, the universal waste States. thereby creates a new hazardous waste,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

becomes a generator and assumes all of such wastes from time of purchase to national procedures as defined in subsequent generator duties under time of sale; such a person may act to § 262.80(a) are subject to existing RCRA and any exporter duties, if arrange and facilitate transboundary controls normally applied to applicable, under this subpart. movements of wastes destined for commercial transactions. recovery operations. (ii) Green wastes that are considered § 262.81 Definitions. Recovery facility means a facility hazardous under U.S. national The following definitions apply to which, under applicable domestic law, procedures as defined in § 262.80(a) are this subpart. is operating or is authorized to operate subject to the Amber control procedures Competent authority means the in the country of import to receive set forth in this subpart. regulatory authority or authorities of wastes and to perform recovery (2) Listed wastes subject to the Amber concerned countries having jurisdiction operations on them. control procedures. over transboundary movements of Recovery operations means activities (i) Amber wastes that are considered wastes destined for recovery operations. leading to resource recovery, recycling, hazardous under U.S. national Countries concerned means the OECD reclamation, direct re-use or alternative procedures as defined in § 262.80(a) are Member countries of export or import uses, which include: subject to the Amber control procedures and any OECD Member countries of R1 Use as a fuel (other than in direct set forth in this subpart. transit. (ii) Amber wastes that are considered Country of export means any incineration) or other means to generate energy. hazardous under U.S. national designated OECD Member country procedures as defined in § 262.80(a), are listed in § 262.58(a)(1) from which a R2 Solvent reclamation/regeneration. R3 Recycling/reclamation of organic subject to the Amber control procedures transboundary movement of hazardous in the United States, even if they are wastes is planned to be initiated or is substances which are not used as solvents. imported to or exported from a initiated. designated OECD Member country Country of import means any R4 Recycling/reclamation of metals and metal compounds. listed in § 262.58(a)(1) that does not designated OECD Member country consider the waste to be hazardous. In listed in § 262.58(a)(1) to which a R5 Recycling/reclamation of other inorganic materials. such an event, the responsibilities of the transboundary movement of hazardous Amber control procedures shift as wastes is planned or takes place for the R6 Regeneration of acids or bases. R7 Recovery of components used for provided: purpose of submitting the wastes to (A) For U.S. exports, the United States pollution abatement. recovery operations therein. shall issue an acknowledgement of R8 Recovery of components used from Country of transit means any receipt and assume other catalysts. designated OECD Member country responsibilities of the competent R9 Used oil re-refining or other reuses listed in § 262.58(a)(1) and (a)(2) other authority of the country of import. of previously used oil. than the country of export or country of (B) For U.S. imports, the U.S. recovery R10 Land treatment resulting in import across which a transboundary facility/importer and the United States benefit to agriculture or ecological movement of hazardous wastes is shall assume the obligations associated improvement. planned or takes place. with the Amber control procedures that R11 Uses of residual materials Exporter means the person under the normally apply to the exporter and obtained from any of the operations jurisdiction of the country of export country of export, respectively. who has, or will have at the time the numbered R1–R10. (iii) Amber wastes that are not planned transboundary movement R12 Exchange of wastes for considered hazardous under U.S. commences, possession or other forms submission to any of the operations national procedures as defined in of legal control of the wastes and who numbered R1–R11. § 262.80(a), but are considered proposes transboundary movement of R13 Accumulation of material hazardous by an OECD Member country the hazardous wastes for the ultimate intended for any operation are subject to the Amber control purpose of submitting them to recovery numbered R1–R12. procedures in the OECD Member operations. When the United States Transboundary movement means any country that considers the waste (U.S.) is the country of export, exporter movement of wastes from an area under hazardous. All responsibilities of the is interpreted to mean a person the national jurisdiction of one OECD U.S. importer/exporter shift to the domiciled in the United States. Member country to an area under the importer/exporter of the OECD Member Importer means the person to whom national jurisdiction of another OECD country that considers the waste possession or other form of legal control Member country. hazardous unless the parties make other of the waste is assigned at the time the arrangements through contracts. waste is received in the country of § 262.82 General conditions. import. (a) Scope. The level of control for Note to Paragraph (a)(2): Some wastes exports and imports of waste is subject to the Amber control procedures are OECD area means all land or marine not listed or otherwise identified as areas under the national jurisdiction of indicated by assignment of the waste to hazardous under RCRA, and therefore are not any OECD Member country listed in either a list of wastes subject to the subject to the Amber control procedures of § 262.58. When the regulations refer to Green control procedures or a list of this subpart. Regardless of the status of the shipments to or from an OECD Member wastes subject to the Amber control waste under RCRA, however, other Federal country, this means OECD area. procedures and by the national environmental statutes (e.g., the Toxic OECD means the Organization for procedures of the United States, as Substances Control Act) restrict certain waste Economic Cooperation and defined in § 262.80(a). The OECD Green imports or exports. Such restrictions Development. and Amber lists are incorporated by continue to apply with regard to this subpart. Recognized trader means a person reference in § 262.89(d). (3) Procedures for mixtures of wastes. who, with appropriate authorization of (1) Listed wastes subject to the Green (i) A Green waste that is mixed with countries concerned, acts in the role of control procedures. one or more other Green wastes such principal to purchase and subsequently (i) Green wastes that are not that the resulting mixture is not sell wastes; this person has legal control considered hazardous under U.S. considered hazardous under U.S.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1255

national procedures as defined in export of wastes subject to the Amber to return the shipment. EPA will then § 262.80(a) shall be subject to the Green control procedures from the United inform the competent authorities of the control procedures, provided the States, as the country of import, to a countries of export and transit, citing composition of this mixture does not third country listed in § 262.58(a)(1) the reason(s) for returning the waste. impair its environmentally sound may occur only after an exporter in the The U.S. importer must complete the recovery. United States provides notification to return within ninety (90) days from the Note to Paragraph (a)(3)(i): The regulated and obtains consent from the competent time EPA informs the country of export community should note that some OECD authorities in the third country, the of the need to return the waste, unless Member countries may require, by domestic original country of export, and any informed in writing by EPA of another law, that mixtures of different Green wastes transit countries. The notification must timeframe agreed to by the concerned be subject to the Amber control procedures. comply with the notice and consent Member countries. If the return (ii) A Green waste that is mixed with procedures in § 262.83 for all countries shipment will cross any transit country, one or more Amber wastes, in any concerned and the original country of the return shipment may only occur amount, de minimis or otherwise, or a export. The competent authorities of the after EPA provides notification to and mixture of two or more Amber wastes, original country of export, as well as the obtains consent from the competent such that the resulting waste mixture is competent authorities of all other authority of the country of transit, and considered hazardous under U.S. countries concerned have thirty (30) provides a copy of that consent to the national procedures as defined in days to object to the proposed U.S. importer. (2) Return from the country of import § 262.80(a) are subject to the Amber movement. (i) The thirty (30) day period begins to the United States: The U.S. exporter control procedures, provided the once the competent authorities of both must provide for the return of the composition of this mixture does not the initial country of export and new hazardous waste shipment within impair its environmentally sound country of import issue ninety (90) days from the time the recovery. Acknowledgements of Receipt of the country of import informs EPA of the Note to Paragraph (a)(3)(ii): The regulated notification. need to return the waste or such other community should note that some OECD (ii) The transboundary movement may period of time as the concerned Member Member countries may require, by domestic commence if no objection has been countries agree. The U.S. exporter must law, that a mixture of a Green waste and lodged after the thirty (30) day period submit an exception report to EPA in more than a de minimis amount of an Amber has passed or immediately after written waste or a mixture of two or more Amber accordance with § 262.87(b). wastes be subject to the Amber control consent is received from all relevant (e) Duty to return wastes subject to the procedures. OECD importing and transit countries. Amber control procedures from a (2) In the case of re-export of Amber country of transit. When a (4) Wastes not yet assigned to an wastes to a country other than those transboundary movement of wastes OECD waste list are eligible for listed in § 262.58(a)(1), notification to subject to the Amber control procedures transboundary movements, as follows: and consent of the competent does not comply with the requirements (i) If such wastes are considered authorities of the original OECD of the notification and movement hazardous under U.S. national Member country of export and any documents or otherwise constitutes procedures as defined in § 262.80(a), OECD Member countries of transit is illegal shipment, and if alternative such wastes are subject to the Amber required as specified in paragraph (c)(1) arrangements cannot be made to recover control procedures. of this section, in addition to these wastes in an environmentally (ii) If such wastes are not considered compliance with all international sound manner, the waste must be hazardous under U.S. national agreements and arrangements to which returned to the country of export. The procedures as defined in § 262.80(a), the first importing OECD Member following provisions apply as such wastes are subject to the Green country is a party and all applicable appropriate: control procedures. regulatory requirements for exports from (1) Return from the United States (as (b) General conditions applicable to the first country of import. country of transit) to the country of transboundary movements of hazardous (d) Duty to return or re-export wastes export: The U.S. transporter must waste: (1) The waste must be destined subject to the Amber control procedures. inform EPA at the specified address in for recovery operations at a facility that, When a transboundary movement of § 262.83(b)(1)(i) of the need to return the under applicable domestic law, is wastes subject to the Amber control shipment. EPA will then inform the operating or is authorized to operate in procedures cannot be completed in competent authority of the country of the importing country; accordance with the terms of the export, citing the reason(s) for returning (2) The transboundary movement contract or the consent(s) and the waste. The U.S. transporter must must be in compliance with applicable alternative arrangements cannot be complete the return within ninety (90) international transport agreements; and made to recover the waste in an days from the time EPA informs the Note to Paragraph (b)(2): These environmentally sound manner in the country of export of the need to return international agreements include, but are not country of import, the waste must be the waste, unless informed in writing by limited to, the Chicago Convention (1944), returned to the country of export or re- EPA of another timeframe agreed to by ADR (1957), ADNR (1970), MARPOL exported to a third country. The the concerned Member countries. Convention (1973/1978), SOLAS Convention provisions of paragraph (c) of this (2) Return from the country of transit (1974), IMDG Code (1985), COTIF (1985), and section apply to any shipments to be re- to the United States (as country of RID (1985). exported to a third country. The export): The U.S. exporter must provide (3) Any transit of waste through a following provisions apply to shipments for the return of the hazardous waste non-OECD Member country must be to be returned to the country of export shipment within ninety (90) days from conducted in compliance with all as appropriate: the time the competent authority of the applicable international and national (1) Return from the United States to country of transit informs EPA of the laws and regulations. the country of export: The U.S. importer need to return the waste or such other (c) Provisions relating to re-export for must inform EPA at the specified period of time as the concerned Member recovery to a third country: (1) Re- address in § 262.83(b)(1)(i) of the need countries agree. The U.S. exporter must

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

submit an exception report to EPA in of the initial country of export shall also wastes in multiple shipments during a accordance with § 262.87(b). be notified of the transboundary period of up to one (1) year. Even when (f) Requirements for wastes destined movement. a general notification is used for for and received by R12 and R13 (g) Laboratory analysis exemption. multiple shipments, each shipment still facilities. The transboundary movement The transboundary movement of an must be accompanied by its own of wastes destined for R12 and R13 Amber waste is exempt from the Amber movement document pursuant to operations must comply with all Amber control procedures if it is in certain § 262.84. control procedures for notification and quantities and destined for laboratory (ii) Tacit consent. If no objection has consent as set forth in § 262.83 and for analysis to assess its physical or been lodged by any countries concerned the movement document as set forth in chemical characteristics, or to determine (i.e., exporting, importing, or transit) to § 262.84. Additional responsibilities of its suitability for recovery operations. a notification provided pursuant to R12/R13 facilities include: The quantity of such waste shall be paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section within (1) Indicating in the notification determined by the minimum quantity thirty (30) days after the date of issuance document the foreseen recovery facility reasonably needed to perform the of the Acknowledgement of Receipt of or facilities where the subsequent R1– analysis in each particular case notification by the competent authority R11 recovery operation takes place or adequately, but in no case exceed of the country of import, the may take place. twenty-five kilograms (25 kg). Waste transboundary movement may (2) Within three (3) days of the receipt destined for laboratory analysis must commence. Tacit consent expires one of the wastes by the R12/R13 recovery still be appropriately packaged and (1) calendar year after the close of the facility or facilities, the facility(ies) shall labeled. thirty (30) day period; renotification and return a signed copy of the movement renewal of all consents is required for document to the exporter and to the § 262.83 Notification and consent. exports after that date. competent authorities of the countries of (a) Applicability. Consent must be (iii) Written consent. If the competent export and import. The facility(ies) shall obtained from the competent authorities authorities of all the relevant OECD retain the original of the movement of the relevant OECD countries of importing and transit countries provide document for three (3) years. import and transit prior to exporting written consent in a period less than (3) As soon as possible, but no later hazardous waste destined for recovery thirty (30) days, the transboundary than thirty (30) days after the operations subject to this subpart. movement may commence immediately completion of the R12/R13 recovery Hazardous wastes subject to the Amber after all necessary consents are received. operation and no later than one (1) control procedures are subject to the Written consent expires for each calendar year following the receipt of requirements of paragraph (b) of this relevant OECD importing and transit the waste, the R12 or R13 facility(ies) section; and wastes not identified on country one (1) calendar year after the shall send a certificate of recovery to the any list are subject to the requirements date of that country’s consent unless foreign exporter and to the competent of paragraph (c) of this section. otherwise specified; renotification and authority of the country of export and to (b) Amber wastes. Exports of renewal of each expired consent is the Office of Enforcement and hazardous wastes from the United States required for exports after that date. Compliance Assurance, Office of as described in § 262.80(a) that are (2) Transboundary movements to Federal Activities, International subject to the Amber control procedures facilities pre-approved by the competent Compliance Assurance Division are prohibited unless the notification authorities of the importing countries to (2254A), Environmental Protection and consent requirements of paragraph accept specific wastes for recovery: Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section (i) Notification. The exporter must NW. Washington, DC 20460, by mail, e- are met. provide EPA a notification that contains mail without digital signature followed (1) Transactions requiring specific all the information identified in by mail, or fax followed by mail. consent: paragraph (d) of this section in English, (4) When an R12/R13 recovery facility (i) Notification. At least forty-five (45) at least ten (10) days in advance of delivers wastes for recovery to an R1– days prior to commencement of each commencing shipment to a pre- R11 recovery facility located in the transboundary movement, the exporter approved facility. The notification must country of import, it shall obtain as soon must provide written notification in indicate that the recovery facility is pre- as possible, but no later than one (1) English of the proposed transboundary approved, and may apply to a single calendar year following delivery of the movement to the Office of Enforcement specific shipment or to multiple waste, a certification from the R1–R11 and Compliance Assurance, Office of shipments as described in paragraph facility that recovery of the wastes at Federal Activities, International (b)(1)(i) of this section. This information that facility has been completed. The Compliance Assurance Division must be sent to the Office of R12/R13 facility must promptly transmit (2254A), Environmental Protection Enforcement and Compliance the applicable certification to the Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, competent authorities of the countries of NW., Washington, DC 20460, with the International Compliance Assurance import and export, identifying the words ‘‘Attention: OECD Export Division (2254A), Environmental transboundary movements to which the Notification’’ prominently displayed on Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania certification pertain. the envelope. This notification must Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (5) When an R12/R13 recovery facility include all of the information identified with the words ‘‘OECD Export delivers wastes for recovery to an R1– in paragraph (d) of this section. In cases Notification—Pre-approved Facility’’ R11 recovery facility located: where wastes having similar physical prominently displayed on the envelope. (i) In the initial country of export, and chemical characteristics, the same General notifications that cover multiple Amber control procedures apply, United Nations classification, the same shipments as described in paragraph including a new notification; RCRA waste codes, and are to be sent (b)(1)(i) of this section may cover a (ii) In a third country other than the periodically to the same recovery period of up to three (3) years. Even initial country of export, Amber control facility by the same exporter, the when a general notification is used for procedures apply, with the additional exporter may submit one general multiple shipments, each shipment still provision that the competent authority notification of intent to export these must be accompanied by its own

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1257

movement document pursuant to general notification. If general, include (bulk shipments only), the generator § 262.84. period of validity requested; must forward the movement document (ii) Exports to pre-approved facilities (10) Date(s) foreseen for with the manifest to the last water (bulk may take place after the elapse of seven commencement of transboundary shipment) transporter to handle the (7) working days from the issuance of an movement(s); waste in the United States if exported by Acknowledgement of Receipt of the (11) Means of transport envisaged; water, (in accordance with the manifest notification by the competent authority (12) Designation of waste type(s) from routing procedures at § 262.23(c)). of the country of import unless the the appropriate OECD list incorporated (2) For rail shipments of hazardous exporter has received information by reference in § 262.89(d), waste within the United States which indicating that the competent authority description(s) of each waste type, originate at the site of generation, the of any countries concerned objects to estimated total quantity of each, RCRA generator must forward the movement the shipment. waste code, and the United Nations document with the manifest (in (c) Wastes not covered in the OECD number for each waste type; accordance with the routing procedures Green and Amber lists. Wastes destined (13) Specification of the recovery for the manifest in § 262.23(d)) to the for recovery operations, that have not operation(s) as defined in § 262.81. next non-rail transporter, if any, or the been assigned to the OECD Green and (14) Certification/Declaration signed last rail transporter to handle the waste Amber lists, incorporated by reference by the exporter that states: in the United States if exported by rail. in § 262.89(d), but which are considered I certify that the above information is (b) The movement document must hazardous under U.S. national complete and correct to the best of my include all information required under procedures as defined in § 262.80(a), are knowledge. I also certify that legally- § 262.83 (for notification), as well as the subject to the notification and consent enforceable written contractual obligations following paragraphs (b)(1) through requirements established for the Amber have been entered into, and that any applicable insurance or other financial (b)(7) of this section: control procedures in accordance with guarantees are or shall be in force covering (1) Date movement commenced; paragraph (b) of this section. Wastes the transboundary movement. (2) Name (if not exporter), address, destined for recovery operations, that Name: lllllllllllllllll telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of have not been assigned to the OECD Signature: llllllllllllllll primary exporter; Green and Amber lists incorporated by Date: llllllllllllllllll (3) Company name and EPA ID reference in § 262.89(d), and are not Note to Paragraph (d)(14): The United number of all transporters; considered hazardous under U.S. States does not currently require financial (4) Identification (license, registered national procedures as defined by assurance for these waste shipments. name or registration number) of means § 262.80(a) are subject to the Green However, U.S. exporters may be asked by of transport, including types of control procedures. other governments to provide and certify to packaging envisaged; (d) Notifications submitted under this such assurance as a condition of obtaining (5) Any special precautions to be consent to a proposed movement. section must include the information taken by transporter(s); specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (e) Certificate of Recovery. As soon as (6) Certification/declaration signed by (d)(14) of this section: (1) Serial number possible, but no later than thirty (30) the exporter that no objection to the or other accepted identifier of the days after the completion of recovery shipment has been lodged, as follows: notification document; and no later than one (1) calendar year I certify that the above information is (2) Exporter name and EPA following receipt of the waste, the U.S. complete and correct to the best of my identification number (if applicable), recovery facility shall send a certificate knowledge. I also certify that legally- address, telephone, fax numbers, and e- of recovery to the exporter and to the enforceable written contractual obligations mail address; competent authorities of the countries of have been entered into, that any applicable (3) Importing recovery facility name, export and import by mail, e-mail insurance or other financial guarantees are or address, telephone, fax numbers, e-mail without a digital signature followed by shall be in force covering the transboundary address, and technologies employed; mail, or fax followed by mail. The movement, and that: (4) Importer name (if not the owner or certificate of recovery shall include a 1. All necessary consents have been received; OR operator of the recovery facility), signed, written and dated statement that 2. The shipment is directed to a recovery address, telephone, fax numbers, and e- affirms that the waste materials were facility within the OECD area and no mail address; whether the importer will recovered in the manner agreed to by objection has been received from any of the engage in waste exchange recovery the parties to the contract required countries concerned within the thirty (30) operation R12 or waste accumulation under § 262.85. day tacit consent period; OR recovery operation R13 prior to 3. The shipment is directed to a recovery delivering the waste to the final § 262.84 Movement document. facility pre-approved for that type of waste recovery facility and identification of (a) All U.S. parties subject to the within the OECD area; such an authorization recovery operations to be employed at contract provisions of § 262.85 must has not been revoked, and no objection has ensure that a movement document been received from any of the countries the final recovery facility; concerned. (5) Intended transporter(s) and/or meeting the conditions of paragraph (b) (Delete sentences that are not applicable) their agent(s); address, telephone, fax, of this section accompanies each and e-mail address; transboundary movement of wastes Name: lllllllllllllllll (6) Country of export and relevant subject to the Amber control procedures Signature: llllllllllllllll Date: llllllllllllllllll competent authority, and point of from the initiation of the shipment until departure; it reaches the final recovery facility, (7) Appropriate signatures for each (7) Countries of transit and relevant including cases in which the waste is custody transfer (e.g., transporter, competent authorities and points of stored and/or sorted by the importer importer, and owner or operator of the entry and departure; prior to shipment to the final recovery recovery facility). (8) Country of import and relevant facility, except as provided in (c) Exporters also must comply with competent authority, and point of entry; paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. the special manifest requirements of 40 (9) Statement of whether the (1) For shipments of hazardous waste CFR 262.54(a), (b), (c), (e), and (i) and notification is a single notification or a within the United States solely by water importers must comply with the import

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

requirements of 40 CFR part 262, notification of intent to export. In such countries require submission of partial or subpart F. cases, contracts must specify that: complete copies of the contract as a (d) Each U.S. person that has physical (1) The person having actual condition to granting consent to proposed custody of the waste from the time the movements, EPA will request the required possession or physical control over the information; absent submission of such movement commences until it arrives at wastes will immediately inform the information, some OECD Member countries the recovery facility must sign the exporter and the competent authorities may deny consent for the proposed movement document (e.g., transporter, of the countries of export and import movement. importer, and owner or operator of the and, if the wastes are located in a recovery facility). country of transit, the competent § 262.86 Provisions relating to recognized (e) Within three (3) working days of authorities of that country; and traders. the receipt of imports subject to this (2) The person specified in the (a) A recognized trader who takes subpart, the owner or operator of the contract will assume responsibility for physical custody of a waste and U.S. recovery facility must send signed the adequate management of the wastes conducts recovery operations (including copies of the movement document to in compliance with applicable laws and storage prior to recovery) is acting as the the exporter, to the Office of regulations including, if necessary, owner or operator of a recovery facility Enforcement and Compliance arranging the return of wastes and, as and must be so authorized in Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, the case may be, shall provide the accordance with all applicable Federal International Compliance Assurance notification for re-export. laws. Division (2254A), Environmental (d) Contracts must specify that the (b) A recognized trader acting as an Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania importer will provide the notification exporter or importer for transboundary Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, required in § 262.82(c) prior to the re- shipments of waste must comply with and to the competent authorities of the export of controlled wastes to a third all the requirements of this subpart countries of export and transit. If the country. associated with being an exporter or concerned U.S. recovery facility is a (e) Contracts or equivalent importer. R12/R13 recovery facility as defined arrangements must include provisions § 262.87 Reporting and recordkeeping. under § 262.81, the facility shall retain for financial guarantees, if required by the original of the movement document the competent authorities of any (a) Annual reports. For all waste movements subject to this subpart, for three (3) years. countries concerned, in accordance with persons (e.g., exporters, recognized applicable national or international law § 262.85 Contracts. traders) who meet the definition of requirements. (a) Transboundary movements of primary exporter in § 262.51 or who hazardous wastes subject to the Amber Note to Paragraph (e): Financial guarantees initiate the movement documentation control procedures are prohibited unless so required are intended to provide for under § 262.84 shall file an annual alternate recycling, disposal or other means report with the Office of Enforcement they occur under the terms of a valid of sound management of the wastes in cases written contract, chain of contracts, or where arrangements for the shipment and the and Compliance Assurance, Office of equivalent arrangements (when the recovery operations cannot be carried out as Federal Activities, International movement occurs between parties foreseen. The United States does not require Compliance Assurance Division controlled by the same corporate or such financial guarantees at this time; (2254A), Environmental Protection legal entity). Such contracts or however, some OECD Member countries do. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, equivalent arrangements must be It is the responsibility of the exporter to NW., Washington, DC 20460, no later executed by the exporter and the owner ascertain and comply with such than March 1 of each year summarizing or operator of the recovery facility, and requirements; in some cases, transporters or the types, quantities, frequency, and importers may refuse to enter into the ultimate destination of all such must specify responsibilities for each. necessary contracts absent specific references Contracts or equivalent arrangements or certifications to financial guarantees. hazardous waste exported during the are valid for the purposes of this section previous calendar year. (If the primary only if persons assuming obligations (f) Contracts or equivalent exporter or the person who initiates the under the contracts or equivalent arrangements must contain provisions movement document under § 262.84 is arrangements have appropriate legal requiring each contracting party to required to file an annual report for status to conduct the operations comply with all applicable requirements waste exports that are not covered under specified in the contract or equivalent of this subpart. this subpart, he may include all export arrangements. (g) Upon request by EPA, U.S. information in one report provided the (b) Contracts or equivalent exporters, importers, or recovery following information on exports of arrangements must specify the name facilities must submit to EPA copies of waste destined for recovery within the and EPA ID number, where available, of contracts, chain of contracts, or designated OECD Member countries is paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this equivalent arrangements (when the contained in a separate section.) Such section: movement occurs between parties reports shall include all of the following (1) The generator of each type of controlled by the same corporate or paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this waste; legal entity). Information contained in section specified as follows: (2) Each person who will have the contracts or equivalent arrangements (1) The EPA identification number, physical custody of the wastes; for which a claim of confidentiality is name, and mailing and site address of (3) Each person who will have legal asserted in accordance with 40 CFR the exporter filing the report; control of the wastes; and 2.203(b) will be treated as confidential (2) The calendar year covered by the (4) The recovery facility. and will be disclosed by EPA only as report; (c) Contracts or equivalent provided in 40 CFR 260.2. (3) The name and site address of each arrangements must specify which party Note to Paragraph (g): Although the United final recovery facility; to the contract will assume States does not require routine submission of (4) By final recovery facility, for each responsibility for alternate management contracts at this time, the OECD Decision hazardous waste exported, a description of the wastes if their disposition cannot allows Member countries to impose such of the hazardous waste, the EPA be carried out as described in the requirements. When other OECD Member hazardous waste number (from 40 CFR

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1259

part 261, subpart C or D), designation of recovery facility that the hazardous regardless of whether it appears in waste type(s) and applicable waste waste was received; Appendix 4 of the OECD Decision, as code(s) from the appropriate OECD (3) The waste is returned to the defined in § 262.81. waste list incorporated by reference in United States. (c) The appropriate control § 262.89(d), DOT hazard class, the name (c) Recordkeeping. (1) Persons who procedures for hazardous wastes and and U.S. EPA identification number meet the definition of primary exporter hazardous waste mixtures are addressed (where applicable) for each transporter in § 262.51 or who initiate the in § 262.82. used, the total amount of hazardous movement document under § 262.84 (d) The OECD waste lists, as set forth waste shipped pursuant to this subpart, shall keep the following records in in Annex B (‘‘Green List’’) and Annex C and number of shipments pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iv) of (‘‘Amber List’’) (collectively ‘‘OECD each notification; this section: waste lists’’) of the 2009 ‘‘Guidance (5) In even numbered years, for each (i) A copy of each notification of Manual for the Implementation of hazardous waste exported, except for intent to export and all written consents Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as hazardous waste produced by exporters obtained from the competent authorities Amended, on the Control of of greater than 100kg but less than of countries concerned for a period of at Transboundary Movements of Wastes 1,000kg in a calendar month, and except least three (3) years from the date the Destined for Recovery Operations,’’ are for hazardous waste for which hazardous waste was accepted by the incorporated by reference. This information was already provided initial transporter; incorporation by reference was pursuant to § 262.41: (ii) A copy of each annual report for approved by the Director of the Federal (i) A description of the efforts a period of at least three (3) years from Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. undertaken during the year to reduce the due date of the report; 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material the volume and toxicity of the waste (iii) A copy of any exception reports is incorporated as it exists on the date generated; and and a copy of each confirmation of of the approval and a notice of any (ii) A description of the changes in delivery (i.e., movement document) sent change in these materials will be volume and toxicity of the waste by the recovery facility to the exporter published in the Federal Register. The actually achieved during the year in for at least three (3) years from the date materials are available for inspection at: comparison to previous years to the the hazardous waste was accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection extent such information is available for the initial transporter or received by the Agency, Docket Center Public Reading years prior to 1984; and recovery facility, whichever is Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 (6) A certification signed by the applicable; and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, person acting as primary exporter or (iv) A copy of each certificate of DC 20004 (Docket # EPA–HQ–RCRA– initiator of the movement document recovery sent by the recovery facility to 2005–0018) or at the National Archives under § 262.84 that states: the exporter for at least three (3) years and Records Administration (NARA), I certify under penalty of law that I have from the date that the recovery facility and may be obtained from the personally examined and am familiar with completed processing the waste Organization for Economic Cooperation the information submitted in this and all shipment. and Development, Environment attached documents, and that based on my (2) The periods of retention referred to Directorate, 2 rue Andre´ Pascal, F– inquiry of those individuals immediately in this section are extended 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. For responsible for obtaining the information, I automatically during the course of any information on the availability of this believe that the submitted information is material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that unresolved enforcement action there are significant penalties for submitting regarding the regulated activity or as or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ false information including the possibility of requested by the Administrator. federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. fine and imprisonment. To contact the EPA Docket Center § 262.88 Pre-approval for U.S. recovery Public Reading Room, call (202) 566– (b) Exception reports. Any person facilities [Reserved]. 1744. To contact the OECD, call +33 (0) who meets the definition of primary 1 45 24 81 67. exporter in § 262.51 or who initiates the § 262.89 OECD waste lists. movement document under § 262.84 (a) General. For the purposes of this PART 263—STANDARDS APPLICABLE must file an exception report in lieu of subpart, a waste is considered TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS the requirements of § 262.42 (if hazardous under U.S. national WASTE applicable) with the Office of procedures, and hence subject to this Enforcement and Compliance subpart, if the waste: The authority citation for part 263 Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, (1) Meets the Federal definition of continues to read as follows: International Compliance Assurance hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3; and Division (2254A), Environmental (2) Is subject to either the Federal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922– Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania RCRA manifesting requirements at 40 6925, 6937, and 6938. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, if CFR part 262, subpart B, the universal Section 263.10(d) is amended by any of the following occurs: waste management standards of 40 CFR revising paragraph (d) to read as (1) He has not received a copy of the part 273, State requirements analogous follows: RCRA hazardous waste manifest (if to 40 CFR part 273, the export applicable) signed by the transporter requirements in the spent lead-acid § 263.10 Scope. identifying the point of departure of the battery management standards of 40 * * * * * waste from the United States, within CFR part 266, subpart G, or State (d) A transporter of hazardous waste forty-five (45) days from the date it was requirements analogous to the export subject to the Federal manifesting accepted by the initial transporter; requirements in 40 CFR part 266, requirements of 40 CFR part 262, or (2) Within ninety (90) days from the subpart G. subject to the waste management date the waste was accepted by the (b) If a waste is hazardous under standards of 40 CFR part 273, or subject initial transporter, the exporter has not paragraph (a) of this section, it is subject to State requirements analogous to 40 received written confirmation from the to the Amber control procedures, CFR part 273, that is being imported

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

from or exported to any of the countries the receiving facility must mail a copy maintained at the facility for at least listed in 40 CFR 262.58(a)(1) for of the manifest and documentation three (3) years. In addition, such owner purposes of recovery is subject to this confirming EPA’s consent to the import or operator shall, as soon as possible, Subpart and to all other relevant of hazardous waste to the following but no later than thirty (30) days after requirements of subpart H of 40 CFR address within thirty (30) days of the completion of recovery and no later part 262, including, but not limited to, delivery: Office of Enforcement and than one (1) calendar year following the 40 CFR 262.84 for movement Compliance Assurance, Office of receipt of the hazardous waste, send a documents. Federal Activities, International certificate of recovery to the foreign * * * * * Compliance Assurance Division exporter and to the competent authority (2254A), Environmental Protection of the country of export and to EPA’s PART 264—STANDARDS FOR Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Office of Enforcement and Compliance OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF NW., Washington, DC 20460. Assurance at the above address by mail, HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, * * * * * e-mail without a digital signature STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL (d) Within three (3) working days of followed by mail, or fax followed by FACILITIES the receipt of a shipment subject to 40 mail. CFR part 262, subpart H, the owner or * * * * * 8. The authority citation for part 264 operator of a facility must provide a continues to read as follows: copy of the movement document 13. Section 265.71 is amended by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, bearing all required signatures to the revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) to read and 6925. exporter, to the Office of Enforcement as follows: and Compliance Assurance, Office of 9. Section 264.12 is amended by § 265.71 Use of manifest system. revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as Federal Activities, International follows: Compliance Assurance Division (a) * * * (2254A), Environmental Protection (3) If a facility receives hazardous § 264.12 Required notices. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, waste imported from a foreign source, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and to (a) * * * the receiving facility must mail a copy competent authorities of all other (2) The owner or operator of a of the manifest and documentation concerned countries. The original copy recovery facility that has arranged to confirming EPA’s consent to the import of the movement document must be receive hazardous waste subject to 40 of hazardous waste to the following maintained at the facility for at least CFR part 262, subpart H must provide address within thirty (30) days of three (3) years from the date of a copy of the movement document delivery: Office of Enforcement and signature. bearing all required signatures to the Compliance Assurance, Office of foreign exporter; to the Office of * * * * * Federal Activities, International Enforcement and Compliance PART 265—INTERIM STATUS Compliance Assurance Division Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, (2254A), Environmental Protection International Compliance Assurance STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Division (2254A), Environmental NW., Washington, DC 20460. Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; DISPOSAL FACILITIES * * * * * and to the competent authorities of all (d) Within three (3) working days of 11. The authority citation for part 265 the receipt of a shipment subject to 40 other countries concerned within three continues to read as follows: (3) working days of receipt of the CFR part 262, subpart H, the owner or shipment. The original of the signed Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, operator of a facility must provide a movement document must be 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and copy of the movement document 6937. maintained at the facility for at least bearing all required signatures to the three (3) years. In addition, such owner 12. Section 265.12 is amended by exporter, to the Office of Enforcement or operator shall, as soon as possible, revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as and Compliance Assurance, Office of but no later than thirty (30) days after follows: Federal Activities, International the completion of recovery and no later § 265.12 Required notices. Compliance Assurance Division than one (1) calendar year following the (a) * * * (2254A), Environmental Protection receipt of the hazardous waste, send a (2) The owner or operator of a Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, certificate of recovery to the foreign recovery facility that has arranged to NW., Washington, DC 20460, and to exporter and to the competent authority receive hazardous waste subject to 40 competent authorities of all other of the country of export and to EPA’s CFR part 262, subpart H must provide countries concerned. The original copy Office of Enforcement and Compliance a copy of the movement document of the movement document must be Assurance at the above address by mail, bearing all required signatures to the maintained at the facility for at least e-mail without a digital signature foreign exporter; to the Office of three (3) years from the date of followed by mail, or fax followed by Enforcement and Compliance signature. mail. Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, * * * * * * * * * * International Compliance Assurance 10. Section 264.71 is amended by Division (2254A), Environmental PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) to read Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC as follows: Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC and to the competent authorities of all TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE § 264.71 Use of manifest system. other countries concerned within three MANAGEMENT FACILITIES (a) * * * (3) working days of receipt of the (3) If a facility receives hazardous shipment. The original of the signed 14. The authority citation for part 266 waste imported from a foreign source, movement document must be is revised to read as follows:

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 1261

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001– 15. In § 266.80(a) the table is revised § 266.80 Applicability and requirements. 3009, 3014, 3017, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, to read as follows: 6922, 6924–6927, 6934, and 6937. (a) * * *

If your batteries . . . And if you . . . Then you . . . And you . . .

(1) Will be reclaimed through re- ...... are exempt from 40 CFR parts are subject to 40 CFR parts 261 generation (such as by electro- 262 (except for § 262.11), 263, and § 262.11 of this chapter. lyte replacement). 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 124 of this chapter, and the notification requirements at section 3010 of RCRA. (2) Will be reclaimed other than generate, collect, and/or transport are exempt from 40 CFR parts are subject to 40 CFR parts 261 through regeneration. these batteries. 262 (except for § 262.11), 263, and § 262.11, and applicable 264, 265, 266, 270, 124 of this provisions under part 268. chapter, and the notification re- quirements at section 3010 of RCRA. (3) Will be reclaimed other than store these batteries but you are exempt from 40 CFR parts are subject to 40 CFR parts 261, through regeneration. aren’t the reclaimer. 262 (except for § 262.11), 263, § 262.11, and applicable provi- 264, 265, 266, 270, 124 of this sions under part 268. chapter, and the notification re- quirements at section 3010 of RCRA. (4) Will be reclaimed other than store these batteries before you must comply with 40 CFR are subject to 40 CFR parts 261, through regeneration. reclaim them. 266.80(b) and as appropriate § 262.11, and applicable provi- other regulatory provisions de- sions under part 268. scribed in 266.80(b). (5) Will be reclaimed other than don’t store these batteries before are exempt from 40 CFR parts are subject to 40 CFR parts 261, through regeneration. you reclaim them. 262 (except for § 262.11), 263, § 262.11, and applicable provi- 264, 265, 266, 270, 124 of this sions under part 268. chapter, and the notification re- quirements at section 3010 of RCRA. (6) Will be reclaimed through re- export these batteries for rec- are exempt from 40 CFR parts are subject to 40 CFR part 261 generation or any other means. lamation in a foreign country. 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and § 262.11, and either must 124 of this chapter, and the no- comply with 40 CFR part 262, tification requirements at sec- subpart H (if shipping to one of tion 3010 of RCRA. You are the OECD countries specified in also exempt from part 262, ex- 40 CFR 262.58(a)(1)), or must: cept for 262.11, and except for (a) Comply with the require- the applicable requirements in ments applicable to a pri- either: (1) 40 CFR part 262 mary exporter in 40 CFR subpart H; or (2) 262.53 ‘‘Notifi- 262.53, 262.56(a) (1) cation of Intent to Export, through (4), (6), and (b) 262.56(a)(1) through (4)(6) and and 262.57; and (b) ‘‘Annual Reports,’’ and (b) Export these batteries 262.57 ‘‘Recordkeeping’’. only upon consent of the receiving country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of Con- sent as defined in subpart E of part 262 of this chap- ter; and (c) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Con- sent for the shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export. (7) Will be reclaimed through re- Transport these batteries in the are exempt from 40 CFR parts must comply with applicable re- generation or any other means. U.S. to export them for rec- 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, quirements in 40 CFR part 262, lamation in a foreign country. 124 of this chapter, and the no- subpart H (if shipping to one of tification requirements at sec- the OECD countries specified in tion 3010 of RCRA. 40 CFR 262.58(a)(1)), or must comply with the following: (a) you may not accept a shipment if you know the shipment does not conform to the EPA Acknowledg- ment of Consent; (b) you must ensure that a copy of the EPA Acknowl- edgment of Consent ac- companies the shipment; and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 1262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

If your batteries . . . And if you . . . Then you . . . And you . . .

(c) you must ensure that the shipment is delivered to the facility designated by the person initiating the ship- ment.

* * * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and § 271.1 Purpose and scope. 6926. * * * * * PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE 17. Section 271.1(j) is amended by (j) * * * HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS adding the following entry to Table 1 and Table 2 in chronological order by 16. The authority citation for part 271 date of publication in the FEDERAL continues to read as follows: REGISTER, to read as follows:

TABLE 1—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

******* Jan. 8, 2010 ...... Exports of hazardous waste ...... [Insert FR page numbers] ...... July 7, 2010.

* * * * *

TABLE 2—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

RCRA cita- Effective date Self-implementing provision tion Federal Register reference

******* July 7, 2010 ...... Exports of hazardous waste ...... 3017(a) [Insert Federal Register reference for publication of final rule].

* * * * * [FR Doc. E9–31081 Filed 1–7–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:20 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JAR4.SGM 08JAR4 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES4 Friday, January 8, 2010

Part V

The President Proclamation 8470—National Mentoring Month, 2010 Proclamation 8471—National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, 2010

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08JAD0.SGM 08JAD0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES5 VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08JAD0.SGM 08JAD0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES5 1265

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 75, No. 5

Friday, January 8, 2010

Title 3— Proclamation 8470 of January 4, 2010

The President National Mentoring Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation Every day, mentors in communities across our Nation provide crucial support and guidance to young people. Whether a day is spent helping with home- work, playing catch, or just listening, these moments can have an enormous, lasting effect on a child’s life. During National Mentoring Month, we recog- nize those who give generously of themselves by mentoring young Americans. As tutors, coaches, teachers, volunteers, and friends, mentors commit their time and energy to kids who may otherwise lack a positive, mature influence in their lives. Their impact fulfills critical local needs that often elude public services. Our government can build better schools with more qualified teachers, but a strong role model can motivate students to do their homework. Lawmakers can put more police officers on our streets and ensure our children have access to high-quality health care, but the advice and example of a trusted adult can keep kids out of harm’s way. Mentors are building a brighter future for our Nation by helping our children grow into productive, engaged, and responsible adults. Many of us are fortunate to recall a role model from our own adolescent years who pushed us to succeed or pulled us back from making a poor decision. We carry their wisdom with us throughout our lives, knowing the unique and timeless gift of mentorship. During this month, I encourage Americans to give back by mentoring young people in their communities who may lack role models, and pass that precious gift on to the next generation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2010 as National Mentoring Month. I call upon public officials, business and commu- nity leaders, educators, and Americans across the country to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAD0.SGM 08JAD0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES5 1266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010–312 Filed 1–7–10; 11:15 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAD0.SGM 08JAD0 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES5 OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Presidential Documents 1267 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8471 of January 4, 2010 National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation The United States was founded on the principle that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom—an ideal that has driven the engine of American progress throughout our history. As a Nation, we have known moments of great darkness and greater light; and dim years of chattel slavery illuminated and brought to an end by President Lincoln’s actions and a painful Civil War. Yet even today, the darkness and inhumanity of enslave- ment exists. Millions of people worldwide are held in compelled service, as well as thousands within the United States. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we acknowledge that forms of slavery still exist in the modern era, and we recommit ourselves to stopping the human traffickers who ply this horrific trade. As we continue our fight to deliver on the promise of freedom, we commemo- rate the Emancipation Proclamation, which became effective on January 1, 1863, and the 13th Amendment, which was sent to the States for ratifica- tion on February 1, 1865. Throughout the month of January, we highlight the many fronts in the ongoing battle for civil rights—including the efforts of our Federal agencies; State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners; international partners; nonprofit social service providers; private industry and nongovernmental organizations around the world who are working to end human trafficking. The victims of modern slavery have many faces. They are men and women, adults and children. Yet, all are denied basic human dignity and freedom. Victims can be abused in their own countries, or find themselves far from home and vulnerable. Whether they are trapped in forced sexual or labor exploitation, human trafficking victims cannot walk away, but are held in service through force, threats, and fear. All too often suffering from horrible physical and sexual abuse, it is hard for them to imagine that there might be a place of refuge. We must join together as a Nation and global community to provide that safe haven by protecting victims and prosecuting traffickers. With improved victim identification, medical and social services, training for first responders, and increased public awareness, the men, women, and children who have suffered this scourge can overcome the bonds of modern slavery, receive protection and justice, and successfully reclaim their rightful independence. Fighting modern slavery and human trafficking is a shared responsibility. This month, I urge all Americans to educate themselves about all forms of modern slavery and the signs and consequences of human trafficking. Together, we can and must end this most serious, ongoing criminal civil rights violation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2010 as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, culminating in the annual celebration of National Freedom Day on February 1. I call

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:23 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAD1.SGM 08JAD1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES6 1268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Presidential Documents

upon the people of the United States to recognize the vital role we can play in ending modern slavery, and to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010–313 Filed 1–7–10; 11:15 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:23 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\08JAD1.SGM 08JAD1 pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES6 OB#1.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 5 Friday, January 8, 2010

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JANUARY

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 39 ...... 221, 224, 901, 904, 906, Presidential Documents 3 CFR 910, 1017 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proclamations: 71 ...... 42, 43, 226 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 8469...... 885 97...... 915, 916 8470...... 1265 121...... 739 Other Services 8471...... 1267 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 Proposed Rules: Executive Orders: 25...... 75, 81 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 12958 (Revoked by 27...... 793, 942 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 13526) ...... 707 29...... 793, 942 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 13292 (Revoked by 39...89, 91, 258, 260, 262, 264, 13526) ...... 707 801, 950 13526...... 707, 1013 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 91...... 942 13527...... 737 121...... 942 World Wide Web Administrative Orders: 125...... 942 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications Memorandums: 135...... 942 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html Memorandum of 15 CFR Federal Register information and research tools, including Public December 15, Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 2009 ...... 1015 90...... 44 http://www.archives.gov/federallregister Memorandum of 738...... 1028 December 29, 902...... 554 E-mail 2009 ...... 733 Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is Orders: 922...... 952 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital Order of December 29, form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 2009 ...... 735 17 CFR of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 7 CFR 275...... 742 PDF links to the full text of each document. 305...... 1 19 CFR To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 319...... 1 Proposed Rules: Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 1400...... 887 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 101...... 266 10 CFR 113...... 266 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 133...... 266 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 50...... 13 21 CFR To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 430...... 652 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 431...... 652, 1122 529...... 1021 the instructions. Proposed Rules: 431...... 186 23 CFR FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 635...... 46 respond to specific inquiries. 11 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 1...... 29 26 CFR Federal Register system to: [email protected] 2...... 29 301...... 48 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 4...... 29 Proposed Rules: regulations. 5...... 29 301...... 94 100...... 29 Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including 101...... 29 31 CFR Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 102...... 29 1...... 743 appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 104...... 29 285...... 745 information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. 110...... 29 Proposed Rules: CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 113...... 29 240...... 95 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 114...... 29 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 201...... 29 32 CFR 300...... 29 724...... 746 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JANUARY 12 CFR 33 CFR 1–218...... 4 229...... 219 100...... 748 219–736...... 5 925...... 678 117...... 227 944...... 678 737–884...... 6 138...... 750 1263...... 678 165...... 754 885–1012...... 7 1290...... 678 Proposed Rules: 1013–1268...... 8 Proposed Rules: 147...... 803 360...... 934 39 CFR 14 CFR Proposed Rules: 25 ...... 32, 35, 37, 39 111...... 282

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:07 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\08JACU.LOC 08JACU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 ii Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Reader Aids

40 CFR 320...... 816 937...... 964 50 CFR 721...... 1180 52 ...... 54, 56, 230, 232 941...... 964 17...... 235 942...... 964 63...... 522 41 CFR 21...... 927 81...... 56 949...... 964 301–10...... 790 22...... 927 180 ...... 760, 763, 767, 770 950...... 964 951...... 964 300...... 554 262...... 1236 44 CFR 635...... 250 263...... 1236 952...... 964 64...... 60 648...... 1021 264...... 1236 660...... 932 265...... 1236 48 CFR 49 CFR 665...... 1023 266...... 1236 171...... 63 Proposed Rules: 679...... 554, 792 271...... 918, 1236 225...... 832 172...... 63 700...... 773 252...... 832 173...... 63 Proposed Rules: 721...... 773 928...... 964 175...... 63 17 ...... 286, 310, 606 723...... 773 931...... 964 178...... 63 223...... 316, 838 725...... 773 932...... 964 238...... 1180 224...... 316, 838 Proposed Rules: 933...... 964 830...... 922 226...... 319 52 ...... 97, 283, 953, 958 935...... 964 Proposed Rules: 648...... 1024 180...... 807 936...... 964 395...... 285

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:07 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\08JACU.LOC 08JACU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2010 / Reader Aids iii

pamphlet) form from the the Andean Trade Preference enacted public laws. To Superintendent of Documents, Act, and for other purposes. subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS U.S. Government Printing (Dec. 28, 2009; 123 Stat. listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Office, Washington, DC 20402 3484) publaws-l.html This is a continuing list of (phone, 202–512–1808). The H.R. 3819/P.L. 111–125 public bills from the current text will also be made To extend the commercial session of Congress which available on the Internet from Note: This service is strictly space transportation liability have become Federal laws. It GPO Access at http:// for E-mail notification of new regime. (Dec. 28, 2009; 123 may be used in conjunction www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ laws. The text of laws is not Stat. 3486) with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws index.html. Some laws may available through this service. Update Service) on 202–741– not yet be available. Last List December 31, 2009 PENS cannot respond to 6043. This list is also H.R. 4314/P.L. 111–123 specific inquiries sent to this available online at http:// To permit continued financing address. www.archives.gov/federal- Public Laws Electronic of Government operations. register/laws.html. Notification Service (Dec. 28, 2009; 123 Stat. (PENS) The text of laws is not 3483) published in the Federal H.R. 4284/P.L. 111–124 Register but may be ordered To extend the Generalized PENS is a free electronic mail in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual System of Preferences and notification service of newly

VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:07 Jan 07, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\08JACU.LOC 08JACU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3